USA v. Hill et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 4:18CR739-2 AGF(SPM)
)
LAMAR MCDONALD, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND MEMORANDUM OPINION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
All pretrial matters were referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Defendant Lamar McDonald is charged with conspiring to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute methamphetamine from on or about August 2017 through June 2018, in violation of
Title 21, United States Code, Section 846. After protracted litigation related to McDonald’s competency,
McDonald filed a series of pretrial motions including a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a
search warrant executed on a priority mail package addressed to 525 Rifle Ridge Drive on November 3,
2017 (the “Postal Warrant”). ECF No. 822. The United States has filed a response opposing McDonald’s
motion. See ECF No. 844.
McDonald argues the affidavit in support of the Postal Warrant lacked probable cause. He also
contends the affidavit contains deliberate falsehoods, reflects reckless disregard for the truth, or material
omissions and urges the Court to hold a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
On January 17, 2025, the parties appeared for an evidentiary hearing and oral argument on all pending
pretrial motions. At the hearing, Special Agent Steven Sander with the United States Postal Service,
Office of Inspector General testified about evidence seized pursuant to the Postal Warrant. The Court
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 1 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

also admitted the relevant search warrant application and search warrant (Govt. Ex. 1); the Police Work
Dog Certification for the police canine referenced in the warrant application (Govt. Ex. 2); SLMPD
Canine Narcotics Training Record (Govt. Ex. 3); and a Drug Chemistry Examinations Report (Govt. Ex.
4). At the end of the evidentiary hearing, the parties requested time to have a transcript prepared and file
post-hearing briefs. Post-hearing briefing is now complete, and McDonald’s suppression motion is now
ready for a ruling.
After carefully considering the evidence presented at the hearing, the parties’ written
submissions, and applicable case law, the Court finds McDonald’s arguments in support of suppression
are without merit. McDonald has also failed to make the substantial preliminary showing necessary to
entitle him to a Franks hearing. As such, based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and for the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that McDonald’s motion to suppress the Postal
Warrant and for a Franks hearing be denied.
I. 	FACTUAL FINDINGS
A. The Postal Warrant Application and Affidavit
On November 3, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins signed a warrant
authorizing the search of a Priority Mail package addressed to Rolando Brown, 525 Rifle Ridge Dr,
O’Fallon MO, 63366 with a return address of Sophia Brown 2039 L. Ave. Apt #C National City, CA
91950 (the “Postal Warrant”). The authorization to search was based on an affidavit submitted by United
States Postal Inspector Steven Sander. See Govt. Exh. 1. See also Hrng. Tr. (ECF No. 859), at p. 92. In
summary, Inspector Sander’s affidavit attests postal inspectors detained the Priority Mail package
because it exhibited multiple characteristics indicative of packages in which narcotics or
proceeds/payments had been found. The affidavit also attests that K-9 Sid, a canine certified in narcotics
detection, alerted to the presence of a narcotic odor in the package.
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 2 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

More specifically, in the affidavit, Inspector Sander attested that he had been employed by the
U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) since February 2014, had received training in the investigation
of controlled substances or proceeds/payments being transported through the United States, and was
currently assigned to the Multi-Functional Team. Govt. Ex. 1, at ¶1. Inspector Sander also attested that
members of the Multi-Functional Team had intercepted numerous parcels which were found to contain
narcotics or proceeds of narcotics trafficking. Id.
The affidavit attests that Express Mail and Priority Mail are frequently used by drug traffickers
to ship controlled substances or proceeds/payments because of their speed, reliability, free telephone and
internet tracking service, and perceived minimal chance of detection. Id. at ¶2. Based on USPIS analysis
of prior packages mailed through overnight delivery services that contained narcotics or
proceeds/payments, the shipping labels on such packages were usually from an individual to an
individual even though Express Mail and Priority Mail was originally intended for urgent business to
business correspondence. Id., at ¶¶2-3. In the affidavit Inspector Sander attested that based on
intelligence from previously intercepted packages, USPIS established a series of characteristics which,
when found in combination of two or more, showed a high probability that a package would contain a
controlled substance or the proceeds of controlled substance sales. Id. at ¶5.
The profile of packages likely containing contraband included the following characteristics:
package mailed from or addressed to a narcotics source city; package had fictitious return address;
package addressee name was unknown at the destination address; package sender name was unknown at
the return address; package address information was handwritten; package was mailed from a
Commercial Mail Receiving Agency (CMRA); package was addressed to residential areas; package was
addressed individual to individual; packages were wrapped in brown paper and/or heavily taped; the zip
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 3 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

code from where the package was mailed was different than the zip code used in the return address. Id.
at ¶¶2-5.
According to the affidavit, on November 3, 2017, inspectors conducting a routine review of
inbound Priority Mail packages at the Hazelwood Postal distribution center observed a Priority Mail
package addressed to Rolando Brown, 525 Rifle Ridge Dr, O’Fallon, MO, 63366 with a return address
of Sophia Brown, 2039 L. Ave. Apt #C, National City, CA, 91950 (“the Subject Parcel”). Id. at ¶7. The
Subject Parcel was mailed on November 1, 2017, from the National City, CA postal facility. The
inspectors noted the Subject Parcel was addressed person to person, had a handwritten label, was
addressed to a residential area, and originated from a known source narcotics area: National City, CA
91950. Id. Due to these characteristics, inspectors detained the Subject Parcel to verify the validity of the
addressees and sender listed on the mailing labels. Id.
The affidavit attests inspectors determined the sender address was not a valid address. Id., at ¶8.
The delivery address (525 Rifle Ridge) was a valid address, but the addressee name “Rolando Brown”
was not associated with that address. Id. Due to the characteristics of the package, a K-9 review was
requested. St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department K-9 Officer Kathy Wiedemann and K-9 Sid
responded, and K-9 Sid reacted in a positive manner to the package, indicating the presence of a narcotic
odor. Id. at ¶9. The affidavit refers to an Intra-Department Report and Correspondence Sheet dated
September 9, 2016, from Officer Wiedemann (the “Report”), as evidence of K-9 Sid’s qualifications. Id.
at ¶14.
The Report, which is attached to the affidavit, states that K-9 Sid is a German Shepard/Belgian
Malinois who graduated from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Canine School on February
19, 2016, along with Officer Wiedemann. Id. The Report also states that K-9 Sid and Officer
Wiedemann trained 2-3 times per month, and K-9 Sid was trained in the following narcotic substances:
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 4 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

Marijuana, Cocaine, Crack Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Heroin, LSD, Mushrooms & Black Tar and
Ecstasy. Id. According to the Report, K-9 Sid was certified with the Missouri Police Canine Association
and the North American Police Working Dog Association (NAPWDA) in narcotics and patrol, Officer
Wiedemann and K-9 Sid were members of the United States Police Canine Association. Id. Finally, the
Report states that during the week of April 25, 2016, Officer Wiedemann and K-9 Sid certified with
NAPWDA for Narcotics/Patrol. Id.
B. Execution of the Postal Warrant
Inspector Sander appeared before Judge Collins on November 3, 2017, and she placed him under
oath in connection with the Postal Warrant application. Id. at p. 94. After reviewing the materials
submitted by Inspector Sander, Judge Collins issued the search warrant on the same day. Id. Thereafter,
Inspector Sander executed the warrant on the same day and filed a copy of the return with the Court. Id.
at p. 94-95 & 98.
The items found within the package were listed on the return and included approximately 450
grams of suspected narcotic MDMA. Id., at p. 98. When field tests yielded negative results, the officers
sent the substance to a forensic laboratory to be chemically analyzed. Id., at p. 99. A report of that
analysis showed that the substance contained a mixture of several substances including the opioid,
fentanyl, Noscapine, caffeine, and Papaverine. Id., at p. 99-100. See also Govt. Exh. 4.
C. Incorrect K-9 Certification Information in the Postal Warrant
After execution of the Postal Warrant, Inspector Sander learned that the K-9 qualification sheet
that Officer Weidemann had provided did not reflect the most current certification date for K-9 Sid. Id.
at p. 95. Specifically, Inspector Sander testified that the certifying body reflected in the Report attached
to the affidavit regarding Sid’s qualifications— the Missouri Police Canine Association and the North
American Police Working Dog Association (NAPWDA)—was not the certifying body that issued K-9
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 5 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

Sid’s updated training certification. Id. at p. 96. Instead, at the time the Postal Warrant was issued, K-9
Sid had been certified by the American Mantrailing, Police and Work Dog Association. See Govt. Ex. 2.
Inspector Sander explained that although the Department had previously used the Missouri Police
Canine Association and NAPWDA to certify its police canines, the Department had switched to
American Mantrailing at the time he applied for the Postal Warrant. Id.; see also Govt. Ex. 2. After the
Postal Warrant was issued and executed, Officer Weidemann provided Inspector Sander with a new,
current training certification. Id. See also Govt. Ex. 2. The updated certification provided by Officer
Weidemann reflects that as of April 24, 2017, about seven months before Judge Collins issued the Postal
Warrant, K-9 Sid was certified by American Mantrailing, the Department’s current certifying body. Id.
Inspector Sander credibly testified that he had no reason to believe there was any inaccuracy in
his affidavit either prior to the execution of the Postal Warrant or at the time he executed the Postal
Warrant. Id. at p. 100. Inspector Sander also testified, credibly, that he had no reason to believe there
was not probable cause to support the search of the package or that anything on the face of the affidavit
or accompanying documents misrepresented K-9 Sid’s certification status at the time the Postal Warrant
was issued. See id. at pp. 112-115. Indeed, the updated certification presented at the hearing reflects that
K-9 Sid was certified at the time the Postal Warrant was issued. Other than the date and issuing agency
of K-9 Sid’s most recent certification, there was no evidence presented that called into question any of
the other information in the Report related to K-9 Sid’s training or qualifications.
II. 	CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Because McDonald’s suppression motion challenges the sufficiency of the Postal Warrant, the
Court’s analysis begins with a review of the warrant and supporting affidavit.
A. L EGAL S TANDARD FOR REVIEW OF S EARCH WARRANTS
“Issuance of a search warrant must be supported by probable cause, which depends on whether,
under the totality of the circumstances, there is fair probability evidence of a crime will be found in a
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 6 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

particular place.” United States v. Faulkner, 826 F.3d 1139, 1144 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing United States v.
Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 928, 936 (8th Cir. 2013)). See also Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948);
United States v. Keys, 721 F.3d 512, 518 (8th Cir. 2013); Fed. R. Crim. P. 41.
Probable cause is “a fluid concept – turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular
factual contexts – not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” Illinois v. Gates, 462
U.S. 213, 232 (1983). Probable cause may be found in hearsay statements from reliable persons, Gates,
462 U.S. at 245; in hearsay statements from confidential informants corroborated by independent
investigation, Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 313 (1959); or in observations made by trained law
enforcement officers, McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 454 (1948). While these are some of the
common ways in which probable cause is established, they are not all-inclusive.
Information contained in applications and affidavits for search warrants must be examined in the
totality of the circumstances presented. Gates, 462 U.S. at 230. It is well-established that, when the
issuing judge relies on the supporting affidavit to issue a search warrant, “only that information which is
found within the four corners of the affidavit may be considered in determining the existence of
probable cause.” United States v. Solomon, 432 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations and quotations
omitted); see also United States v. Farlee, 757 F.3d 810, 819 (8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Gladney,
48 F.3d 309, 312 (8 th Cir. 1995).
After a judicial officer has issued a warrant upon a finding of probable cause, that finding
normally deserves great deference. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236. Thus, “[t]he affidavit should be examined
under a commonsense approach that is not in a hypertechnical fashion.” Solomon, 432 F.3d at 827
(citation and quotations omitted). See also United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 (1965);
Gladney, 48 F.3d at 312 (explaining that “[a]ffidavits must be read in a common-sense and realistic
fashion”) (citations and quotations omitted). In applying this principle when reviewing the issuance of a
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 7 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

warrant, this Court “afford[s] great deference to the issuing judge’s probable-cause determination,
ensuring only that the judge had a substantial basis for concluding that a search warrant would uncover
evidence of wrongdoing.” United States v. Petruk, 929 F.3d 952, 959 (8th Cir.) (citations and quotations
omitted; emphasis supplied), cert denied, 140 S. Ct. 510 (2019); see also United States v. Daigle, 947
F.3d 1076, 1081 (8th Cir. 2020) (citations and quotations omitted).
B. T HE POSTAL WARRANT WAS S UPPORTED B Y PROBABLE CAUSE
Based upon the facts contained within the four corners of the affidavit, the Court finds that the
Postal Warrant was supported by probable cause. Specifically, Inspector Sander’s affidavit established
that, based on the totality of the circumstances, agents had reason to believe the subject parcel would
contain a controlled substance or the proceeds of controlled substance sales. The warrant affidavit
reflected that, through experience and analysis, postal inspectors like Inspector Sander had identified a
series of characteristics which, when found in combination of two or more, showed a high probability
that a package would contain a controlled substance or the proceeds of controlled substance sales. The
warrant affidavit also reflected that the parcel that was ultimately searched had two or more of the
identified characteristics, giving rise to a high probability that the parcel would contain a controlled
substance or the proceeds of a controlled substance. Finally, the warrant affidavit reflects that Inspector
Sander relied on the findings of a narcotics detection K-9, Sid, who reacted in a positive manner to the
package, indicating the presence of a narcotic odor. K-9 Sid’s qualifications were attached to the warrant
affidavit and reflected that Sid had graduated from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Canine
School on February 19, 2016; trained 2-3 times a week; was a trained narcotic/patrol canine certified
with the Missouri Police Canine Association and North American Police Working Dog Association and
with NAPWDA the week of 4/25/16.
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 8 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

These circumstances are more than sufficient to support Judge Collins’s probable cause finding.
“[E]vidence of a dog’s satisfactory performance in a certification or training program can itself provide
sufficient reason to trust his alert. If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his
reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that
the dog’s alert provides probable cause to search.” Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 246–47 (2013). In
Harris, the Court further held, “[t]he same is true, even in the absence of formal certification, if the dog
has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating
drugs.” Id.
McDonald asserts K-9 Sid’s alert on the package was a false positive because the package
contained Noscapine, which is not a controlled substance. However, this assertion is undercut by
Inspector Sander’s hearing testimony, supported by the written laboratory report, that in addition to
Noscapine, the substance in the package contained the opioid fentanyl and Papaverine, an alkaloid
derived from opium.1 This assertion also falls under the weight of the reasoning found in cases like
Harris, in which the Supreme Court held:
. . . [I]f a dog alerts to a car in which the officers finds no narcotics, the dog may
not have made a mistake at all. The dog may have detected substances that were
too well hidden or present in quantities too small for the officer to locate. Or the
dog may have smelled the residual odor of drugs previously in the vehicle or on
the driver’s person.
Harris, 568 U.S. at 245–246.
McDonald’s suppression motion fails even if, as he asserts, K-9 Sid’s alert was a false positive
alert. In determining if probable cause exists, the reviewing court examines the information before the
Magistrate Judge at the time the search warrant was issued—not what was found later. The Supreme
Court has held “…we do not evaluate probable cause in hindsight, based on what a search does nor does
1See Ashrafi, S., et al., Papaverine: A Miraculous Alkaloid from Opium and its Multimedicinal
Application, Molecules. 2023 Mar. 31; 28; https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10095881/.
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 9 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

not turn up. Harris, 568 U.S. at 249. Here, the affidavit provided ample information—individual to
individual Priority Mail package, handwritten address, addressed to residential area, fictitious sender
address, addressee name not associated with address, originated from known source narcotics area, and
positive trained K-9 alert—for the court to find probable cause to search the package. In sum, even if K-
9 Sid’s alert turned out to be a false positive, as McDonald suggests, based on the four corners of the
Postal Warrant and affidavit, the Postal Warrant was supported by probable cause.
C. MCDONALD H AS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE HE IS E NTITLED TO A F RANK ’S H EARING
In Franks, the Supreme Court held that, under limited circumstances, a defendant may
attack the veracity of an affidavit after the warrant has been issued and executed. Specifically,
a criminal defendant may request a hearing to challenge a search warrant on the ground that the
supporting affidavit contains factual misrepresentations or omissions relevant to the probable
cause determination. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. However, to gain such a hearing, a defendant
must show both (1) that the affiant made a false statement “knowingly and intentionally” or with
“reckless disregard for the truth” (or omitted material information) and (2) if the false information
is excised (or the omitted information is included), the affidavit no longer establishes probable cause.
See id. at 155-56; see also United States v. Arnold, 725 F.3d 896, 898 (8th Cir. 2013) (affirming denial
of Franks hearing notwithstanding district court’s finding of several misrepresentations and omissions in
the search warrant; stating, “the affidavit established probable cause even absent [the]
misrepresentations and including the omitted information”).
The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly recognized that “[t]he requirement of a substantial preliminary
showing is not lightly met,” Arnold, 725 F.3d at 898 (quoting United States v. Mathison, 157 F.3d 541,
548 (8th Cir. 1998)), and recently reiterated that a Franks hearing is not appropriate unless and until the
defendant makes the requisite preliminary showing that the warrant affidavit contained an intentional or
reckless false statement or omission that was necessary to the finding of probable cause. United States v.
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 10 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

Blair, 93 F.4th 1080, 1084–85 (8th Cir. 2024) (holding the court did not abuse its discretion by denying
a Franks hearing because “[e]xcised of the contested statements, the affidavit still established ‘a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found’”).
Defendant has failed to meet this high burden for a Franks hearing, first, because he has failed to
demonstrate that Inspector Sander knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth,
made a false statement or omitted material information from the affidavit. With respect to K-9 Sid, the
affidavit states:
See Govt. Ex. 1.
Other than to point out that the name of the certifying agency and the date of the most recent
certification in the qualifications Report was inaccurate, Defendant has made no attempt to demonstrate
that any of the assertions relating to K-9 Sid’s positive alert and K-9 Sid’s qualifications were false
when the warrant was issued. In determining whether a defendant has made the requisite preliminary
showing required by Franks to warrant a hearing, “[a]llegations of negligence or innocent mistake will
not suffice to demonstrate reckless or deliberate falsehood.” United States v. McIntyre, 646 F.3d 1107,
1114 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171). Rather, the test is whether, after viewing all the
evidence, the affiant must have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his statements or had
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 11 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

obvious reasons to doubt the accuracy of the information he reported.” United States v. Conant, 799
F.3d 1195, 1200 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting McIntyre, 646 F.3d at 1114). Based on the factual findings,
Defendant has failed to meet this test. As noted in the Court’s factual findings, the updated certification
presented at the hearing reflects that K-9 Sid was certified at the time the Postal Warrant was issued.
Other than the date and issuing agency of K-9 Sid’s most recent certification, Defendant presented no
evidence that called into question any of the other information in the Report related to K-9 Sid’s training
or qualifications.
Even if the mistaken reference to K-9 Sid’s outdated certification could somehow be construed
as a false statement or omission, Defendant fails to satisfy the second pre-requisite for a Franks
hearing—namely, that excised of the contested statement, the affidavit fails to establish a fair probability
that contraband or evidence of a crime would have found. See Blair, 93 F.4th at 1084–85 (holding the
court did not abuse its discretion by denying a Franks hearing because “[e]xcised of the contested
statements, the affidavit still established ‘a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would
be found’”).
Here, the contested information presented to the Magistrate Judge regarding expired
certifications is contained in the Report attached to the affidavit and it states:
If the contested/inaccurate information were removed, the Report would state:
K-9 Sid and I train at least 2-3 times a month and he is certified with Missouri Police
Canine Association and North American Police Working Dog Association in narcotics
and patrol. Also, we are members of the United States Police Canine Association. The
week of 4/25/16 we certified with NAPWDA for Narcotics/Patrol.
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 12 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

If the Report were corrected to reflect the actual state of Sid’s certification at the time the
warrant was issued, the Report would state:
K-9 Sid and I train at least 2-3 times a month and he is certified with American
Mantrailing, Police & Work Dog Association in narcotics and patrol. Also, we are
members of the United States Police Canine Association. The week of April 24, 2017, we
certified with American Mantrailing, Police & Work Dog Association for
Narcotics/Patrol.
Irrespective of whether the contested/inaccurate information is “excised” or corrected, the
affidavit still established “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found.”
Blair, 93 F.4th at 1084–85. Based on the factual findings, Inspector Sander obtained and reasonably
relied on the qualifications sheet provided by K-9 Sid’s handler, Officer Wiedemann. The qualifications
sheet attached to the affidavit accurately reflected that K-9 Sid graduated from canine school in
February of 2016, had ongoing training, and had been certified with the Missouri Police Canine
Association and with NAPWDA for Narcotics and Patrol the week of April 2, 2016. There was no
evidence or argument presented to suggest these statements were untrue. The evidence presented at the
hearing demonstrated that K-9 Sid’s certification by a different certifying agency—American
Mantrailing, Police and Work Dog Association was even more current/up-to-date than the qualifications
sheet attached to the affidavit suggested. McDonald’s motion fails because he has simply failed to show,
as required by Franks, either that the affidavit contained material omissions/deliberately false statements
or that the removal and/or inclusion of contested facts would impact probable cause. Franks, 438 U.S. at
155-56.
D. THE GOOD F AITH E XCEPTION A PPLIES
Based on this Court’s factual findings, evidence seized pursuant to the Postal Warrant would be
admissible under the Leon good-faith exception even if this Court somehow concluded that the affidavit
did not establish probable cause. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). The good-faith
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 13 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

inquiry asks, “whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal
despite the [issuing judge’s] authorization.” United States v. Escudero, 100 F.4th 964, 968 (8th Cir.
2024) (quoting United Stats v. Puckett, 466 F.3d 626, 630 (8th Cir. 2006)). As the Eighth Circuit
recognized in United States v. Jackson, 784 F.3d 1227, 1231 (8th Cir. 2015), there are four instances
where the Leon good faith exception does not apply: (1) when the affidavit or testimony supporting the
warrant contained a false statement made knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for its
truth, thus misleading the issuing judge; (2) when the issuing judge “wholly abandoned his judicial role”
in issuing the warrant; (3) when the affidavit in support of the warrant is “so lacking in indicia of
probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable;” and (4) when the
warrant is “so facially deficient” that no police officer could reasonably presume the warrant to be valid.
Id.
For the reasons set out in the previous section, McDonald has not satisfied either the first or
fourth Leon exceptions because he has failed to demonstrate that the affidavit supporting the Postal
Warrant contained a deliberately false statement or material omission and has failed to demonstrate that
the warrant was so facially deficient that no officer could reasonably presume the warrant to be valid.
McDonald has not argued, and cannot demonstrate based on the record, that any of the remaining Leon
exceptions apply here. In other words, there is simply no evidence of record to support a finding that
either Inspector Sander had any reason to believe his search of the postal package was illegal despite the
issuing judge’s authorization. In sum, the postal evidence is admissible because, based on the facts and
evidence of record, it was objectively reasonable for Inspector Sander to have relied on Judge Collins’s
determination that there was probable cause to issue the Postal Warrant.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion,
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 14 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED, that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Postal Evidence (ECF
No. 822) be DENIED.
The parties are advised that they have fourteen (14) days in which to file written objections to this
recommendation and determination. Failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of the right to
appeal questions of fact. Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
Trial in this case will be set before the Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, by separate order.
SHIRLEY PADMORE MENSAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: November 3, 2025
Case: 4:18-cr-00739-AGF Doc. #: 905 Filed: 11/03/25 Page: 15 of 15 PageID #:
<pageID>