United States v. Jesse Rance Moore

── United States v. Jesse Rance Moore ── Case No.: 24-10447 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: March 13, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-10447 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 1 of 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10447 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JESSE RANCE MOORE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cr-00079-LAB-JBT-1 ____________________ Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: A jury found Jesse Moore guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit robbery, three counts of robbery, and three counts of brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of USCA11 Case: 24-10447 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 2 of 8 2 Opinion of the Court 24-10447 violence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 924(c). The charges stemmed from the armed robbery of three pharmacies in Florida. Mr. Moore argues on appeal that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress any evidence or statements derived from his encounter with Officer Nigel Elliot. According to Mr. Moore, Officer Elliot conducted an investigatory stop without rea- sonable suspicion or probable cause. Mr. Moore also contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress any evi- dence or statements derived from law enforcement officers’ search of his property because the “open fields” doctrine has been called into question and he did not consent to a warrantless search. Fol- lowing a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm. I A ruling on a motion to suppress presents a mixed question of law and fact. See United States v. Perez, 443 F.3d 772, 774 (11th Cir. 2006). We conduct plenary review of legal conclusions and clear error review of factual findings, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the party which prevailed below. See United States v. Holmes, 141 F.4th 1183, 1191 (11th Cir. 2025). We generally defer to the credibility determinations of the factfinder unless its understanding of the facts appears to be unbelievable. See United States v. Holt, 777 F.3d 1234, 1255 (11th Cir. 2015). II The Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” USCA11 Case: 24-10447 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 03/13/2026 Page: 3 of 8 24-10447 Opinion of the Court 3 U.S. Const. amend. IV. As relevant here, it shields persons from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers un- der certain circumstances, and subject to certain exceptions. See Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). Evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures is generally inadmissible. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 654–55 (1961). This exclusionary rule extends beyond the direct products of the constitutional violation to the “fruit of the poison-