USA v. Jackson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. CR-24-450-R
)
ANTWON MONTRELL JACKSON, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Jackson’s Amended Motion to Suppress Evidence
Obtained from Illegal Search Warrant and Subsequent Search of Samsung Galaxy A03s
[Doc. No. 112].1 The United States responded in opposition [Doc. No. 122].
The Second Superseding Indictment [Doc. No. 67] in this case charges Defendant
with Conspiracy to Commit Child Sex Trafficking, Child Sex Trafficking, and Obstruction
of Sex Trafficking Enforcement. The charges are supported, at least in part, by evidence
found during the execution of a search warrant for a Samsung Galaxy A03s phone. In his
amended motion, Defendant seeks to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the search
warrant and all evidence gleaned or collected from the search of the phone. He argues that
the affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant contains misleading statements and
material omissions that undermine a finding of probable cause to believe that the Samsung
Galaxy phone belonged to Mr. Jackson or that evidence could be located on the phone.
1 Defendant filed an amended motion that deleted or modified arguments made in his initial
motion to suppress. Because Defendant filed an amended motion, his initial Motion to
Suppress Evidence [Doc. No. 106] is DENIED as moot.
Case 5:24-cr-00450-R Document 138 Filed 03/31/25 Page 1 of 5

2
The Fourth Amendment states that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The sufficiency of an
affidavit upon which a warrant is issued is evaluated “by looking at the totality of the
circumstances and simply ensuring ‘that the magistrate had a substantial basis for
concluding that probable cause existed.’” United States v. Tisdale, 248 F.3d 964, 970 (10th
Cir. 2001) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238–39 (1983)). “Probable cause means
that ‘there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place.’” Id. (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238).
However, “[a] search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search suppressed
where a court (1) finds that the affiant knowingly or recklessly included false statements
in or omitted material information from an affidavit in support of a search warrant and (2)
concludes, after excising such false statements and considering such material omissions,
that the corrected affidavit does not support a finding of probable cause.” United States v.
Garcia-Zambrano, 530 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438
U.S. 154, 155–56 (1978)). With respect to the second component, the court’s task is
essentially to “ask whether a warrant would have issued in a but-for world where the
attesting officer faithfully represented the facts.” United States v. Herrera, 782 F.3d 571,
575 (10th Cir. 2015). “If so, the contested misstatement or omission can be dismissed as
immaterial” and the motion to suppress denied. Id.
The affidavit in support of the search warrant in this case indicates that police
department officers responded to a “disturbance” at an apartment complex on July 29, 2024
[Doc. No. 112-1 at p. 3]. Jane Doe and Mr. Jackson were located inside the apartment. Ms.
Case 5:24-cr-00450-R Document 138 Filed 03/31/25 Page 2 of 5

3
Doe’s mother was also at the scene and she obtained Ms. Doe’s cell phone and the Samsung
Galaxy phone, which she believed belonged to Mr. Jackson. Id. Ms. Doe’s mother looked
in Ms. Doe’s phone and observed messages between Ms. Doe, Mr. Jackson, and a co-
defendant, Ms. Holland. Id. The affidavit then states that the messages appeared to be Mr.
Jackson and Ms. Holland discussing Ms. Doe and commercial sex activities. Id. Excerpts
of several messages are included in the affidavit. Id. at 4. In addition to these statements,
the affidavit describes an interview on July 31, 2024 with Ms. Doe where she stated that
Mr. Jackson and Ms. Holland trained her on how to safely conduct commercial sex dates
and that the money earned through commercial sex dates went to Mr. Jackson, via Ms.
Holland. Id. at 4. The affidavit also describes an interview with Ms. Holland on August 1,
2024, where she stated that Mr. Jackson “forced her” to post an advertisement for Ms. Doe
and she sent payments from commercial sex dates to Mr. Jackson. Id. at 4-5. The affidavit
indicates that Ms. Holland permitted the affiant to look at her text messages, which
included the same text messages that were previously referenced. Id.
Mr. Jackson identifies a number of alleged misstatements or omissions in the
affidavit that he argues cast doubt on the probable cause finding and warrant a hearing on
the veracity of the affidavit. More specifically, he notes that body camera footage from the
responding officers did not reveal any “disturbance” at the apartment, details about other
persons and conversations that occurred at the apartment complex were omitted, and dates
and specific numbers for the text messages are not included in the affidavit. He also points
out that the affidavit confusingly suggests that the text messages that were included as
excerpts were the ones Jane Doe’s mother viewed and showed the officers, when in fact
Case 5:24-cr-00450-R Document 138 Filed 03/31/25 Page 3 of 5

4
these messages were provided by someone else and reflect only a conversation between
Ms. Holland and who the affiant believes is Mr. Jackson. On this last issue, the United
States concedes that the source of the text messages excerpted in the affidavit needs
clarifying, although it maintains that this does not fatally affect the probable cause finding.
The Court concludes that a hearing on the motion is not necessary because, even if
information concerning the disputed text messages was excised from the affidavit and the
omissions identified by Defendant were considered, the corrected affidavit would support
a finding of probable cause.2 The affidavit includes statements from interviews with Ms.
Doe and Ms. Holland which provide a substantial basis to conclude that Mr. Jackson was
involved in sending Ms. Doe on commercial sex dates and used access to computers to
facilitate the conduct. Further, the Samsung Galaxy phone was found in the apartment
where Mr. Jackson was located and the officers were told that the phone belonged to Mr.
Jackson, which is sufficient for the purposes of probable cause to link Mr. Jackson to the
phone.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Defendant Jackson’s Amended Motion
to Suppress Evidence [Doc. No. 112] is DENIED.
2 A hearing is not necessary where, as here, there are no relevant facts in dispute or no
material omissions in the affidavit. See United States v. Pettigrew, 468 F.3d 626, 638 (10th
Cir. 2006) (“An evidentiary hearing may be appropriate when there are material facts in
dispute relevant to the motion to suppress,…but here, the Government conceded the facts
as related by [the defendant].”); United States v. Ingram, 720 F. App'x 461, 470 (10th Cir.
2017) (affirming district court’s denial of Franks hearing because, even if the affiant acted
with deliberate or reckless disregard for the truth, “the omission wasn’t material”).
Case 5:24-cr-00450-R Document 138 Filed 03/31/25 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31 st day of March, 2025.
Case 5:24-cr-00450-R Document 138 Filed 03/31/25 Page 5 of 5