United States v. Davis

── United States v. Davis ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-7098 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 16, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 24-7098 (D.C. No. 6:23-CR-00178-RAW-1) MICHAEL SHAUN DAVIS, (E.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before McHUGH, MORITZ, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This much is clear: Sheriff’s deputies searched Michael Davis’s house with a warrant and found guns he could not legally possess. What remains unclear is whether the warrant listed the correct address for the house. The warrant listed an address on McGinnis Street. But Mr. Davis says the house is on Meginnis Street. Because the warrant identified the wrong street, Mr. Davis tells us, it was invalid, requiring suppression of the evidence found in his house. We disagree. Even if the After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 24-7098 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/16/2026 Page: 2 warrant misspelled the street name, the deputies relied on it in good faith, so there was no reason to suppress evidence found in the search. I The Fourth Amendment demands that a search warrant describe the place to be searched with particularity. United States v. Russian, 848 F.3d 1239, 1244 (10th Cir. 2017). Evidence obtained through a search that violated the Fourth Amendment will generally be suppressed—that is, excluded from the government’s case-in-chief. See United States v. Suggs, 998 F.3d 1125, 1140 (10th Cir. 2021); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 900 (1984). But exceptions to this general exclusionary rule exist. Even if a search warrant is ultimately determined to violate the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, for example, evidence obtained by officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on the warrant will not be suppressed. See Russian, 848 F.3d at 1246. This good-faith exception seeks to limit the exclusionary rule to those cases in which it will deter police misconduct. See id. “When an officer acts in good faith, there is nothing to deter.” Id. II The events leading to this case started when Mr. Davis’s neighbors reported that he had been shooting guns toward their homes. Law enforcement researched Mr. Davis’s criminal history and discovered he had been convicted of a felony. A person with a felony conviction may not possess a gun. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). An investigator at the she