United States v. Saddler, No. 21-1884 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Officers responded to a shooting in an apartment building's parking lot. Three victims were transported to the hospital. Officers observed a security camera in the window of apartment 1, pointed toward the parking lot. After interviewing two witnesses, Detective Dunn viewed video footage from a business across the street, which corroborated their account. He learned that Haney, an occupant of unit 1, was involved in a dispute with the sister of two shooting victims. Dunn obtain a warrant to search Unit 1; other officers executed the warrant. An officer moved clothes in the bedroom closet and saw a sawed-off shotgun. He also seized a baggie of white powder, a laptop, and cell phones from the bedroom. Other officers seized cameras, a computer monitor, a Kindle, shotgun shells, pieces of a scale with traces of drug residue, photographs, and documents bearing the names of Haney and Saddler.
Saddler later unsuccessfully moved to suppress all evidence seized during the search and an incriminating statement she later made concerning the shotgun. The Eighth Circuit affirmed her subsequent conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). The affidavit described facts that connected Haney to the shooting and created a fair probability that evidence that would aid in a particular apprehension or conviction would be found. Dunn’s reliance on the issuance of the warrant was objectively reasonable. In addition, the seizure of the shotgun satisfied the “plain view” exception.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Wollman and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The affidavit in support of the application for a warrant to search defendant's apartment was sufficient to establish probable cause that evidence relating to a shooting, including surveillance cam video, would be found in defendant's apartment; while the warrant was not sufficient to meet the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement, the Leon good faith exception applied because the information the officer provided in the affidavit and learned during the investigation made the officer's reliance on the magistrate's issuance of the warrant objectively reasonable; the officers were lawfully present in the apartment and could seize a sawed-off shotgun under the plain view doctrine as the incriminating nature of the gun under federal and state law was immediately apparent. [ December 02, 2021 ]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.