Detective Josh Newman received cyber-tips linking a Dropbox account to Kalub Jackson, suggesting the possession of child pornography. Based on this information, a federal magistrate judge issued a search warrant for Jackson's home in Hesperus, Colorado, and his electronic devices. On February 6, 2023, officers gathered a mile away from the residence to prepare for the warrant execution. As they waited, Jackson drove by on his way to work. The officers stopped him, informed him of the warrant, and questioned him. Jackson eventually handed over his phone, which contained the incriminating evidence. Jackson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant by searching him away from his home. The district court denied the motion, and Jackson entered a conditional guilty plea while reserving his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether the officers' conduct violated the Fourth Amendment. The court determined that the officers' stop of Jackson was lawful under the precedent set in Terry v. Ohio. The court found that Detective Newman had reasonable, articulable suspicion that Jackson was involved in criminal activity based on the cyber-tips and the likelihood that contraband would be found on his person. The court rejected the argument that the stop was invalid because it occurred away from the residence specified in the warrant. Instead, the court held that the officers were reacting to evolving circumstances where Jackson was driving away, and the stop was a reasonable investigative detention. The court noted that Jackson failed to establish that the roadside encounter constituted a search or seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment in the first instance. Consequently, the court found it unnecessary to address the scope of the warrant or the applicability of the good faith or inevitable discovery exceptions, as no constitutional violation occurred to trigger the exclusionary rule.
The decision affirms Jackson's conviction and sentence, leaving the evidence from his phone admissible. It establishes that in situations where a warrant execution is disrupted by a suspect's movement, officers may rely on reasonable suspicion under Terry to detain and question a suspect, even if the specific location conditions of the warrant are not met. The ruling limits the ability to suppress evidence in similar scenarios by focusing on the reasonableness of the stop rather than the strict scope of the warrant execution.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download