05-3277 — United States of America v. Chad L. Esser, Appellant

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
(April 12, 2006)


BRIEFS

Briefs require Adobe Acrobat Reader.

CASE SUMMARY (prepared at Washburn Law)

Nature of the Case
Chad Esser was indicted on fourteen counts. The charges included four counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm; four counts of possession of a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm; four counts of possessing silencers; one count of possession of methamphetamine; and one count of possession of a short-barreled rifle. Esser filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his home as a result of a no-knock search. The District Court denied his motion to suppress. He then pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a short-barrel rifle. Esser is appealing the denial of the motion to suppress.

Issue Statement
Whether the District Court erred by: (1) assigning the defense the burden of proving that the no-knock search was unreasonable; (2) finding that the no-knock search was reasonable: and (3) having Esser detained prior to the trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A).

Defendant/ Appellant's Position
Defendant contends that the government should carry the burden of proof in no-knock search cases and that the District Court erred by assigning the burden of proof to the defense. Furthermore, the search was unreasonable in this case because the judge issued the no-knock warrant based solely on the report that the Defendant kept firearms on the premises. The probability that drugs or weapons will be found in a search does not by itself justify a no-knock search warrant. Finally, the defendant argues that possessing drugs and firearms are not crimes of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4)(B) making his pretrial detention inappropriate.

Government/Appellee's Position
The Government argues that the District Court properly allocated the burden of proof to the Defendant. When a warrant is issued, the defense carries the burden of proving that it was issued based on intentionally false or reckless information. The Government also insists that the District Court did not err by denying Esser’s motion to suppress. There is no proof that the state judge failed to examine the totality of the circumstances when he issued the officers a no-knock warrant. The judge’s decision to issue the warrant was based on several factors including: (1) the probability that the Defendant possessed drugs, (2) his demeanor at the animal shelter, (3) his knowledge that he was a suspect in the animal shelter break in, and (4) the report that he owned several weapons. Finally, the District Court did not err by detaining the Defendant before trial. The Defendant was not detained because he committed crimes of violence. He was detained because the judge determined he was a flight risk. Moreover, the detention issue is moot because the defendant waived his rights to appeal the issue with his guilty plea.

INFORMAL CASE SUMMARY

Please Note: This informal case summary is not intended for official use and does not purport to be exhaustive of the issues or defenses presented by the parties.

Defendant Esser pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and to possession of a non-registered short barrel rifle. Other charges against him were dismissed. He was sentenced to 57 months of imprisonment, followed by a period of supervised release. On appeal, defendant challenges the propriety of the "no knock" search warrant that resulted in the discovery of firearms in Esser's apartment. He also asserts that the charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a crime of violence and that he should therefore have been allowed to be released on bail.