USA v. Harris

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CASE NO. 3:25-CR-00004-BSM
LASHAWN DERON HARRIS 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
Defendant Lashawn Deron Harris’s motion to suppress [Doc. No. 29] is denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The Arkansas State Police stopped Harris for speeding during the time that the Drug
Task Force was investigating him for cocaine and methamphetamine dealing. Doc. No. 35
at 1; Doc. No. 30 at 1. 	Trooper Tanner Middlecoff’s drug dog alerted to narcotics and
Middlecoff arrested Harris after finding cocaine and methamphetamine in his car. Id. at 2.
Special Agents Daniel Willey and Billy Calderon then applied for a warrant to search
Harris’s home. 	Id. 	While sitting outside Harris’s home, they called Craighead County
Circuit Judge Chris Thyer and drafted an affidavit and search warrant. Doc. No. 35 at 3.
The affidavit stated: “Located in the City of Blytheville, in the County of Mississippi, State
of AR, there is now being concealed certain property, namely: cocaine, methamphetamine,
marijuana, drug paraphernalia used to facilitate the sale of controlled substances; money
derived from the sale of controlled substance.” Gov. Ex. 1, Doc. No. 35.
Based on the affidavit, Judge Thyer issued the warrant and emailed the affidavit,
search warrant, and blank return sheet to the agents. Doc. No. 35 at 3. In the area of the
Case 3:25-cr-00004-BSM Document 39 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 4

warrant for the judge to describe the basis for the search. Judge Thyer wrote “see affidavit.”
Gov. Ex. 2, Doc. No. 35. Judge Thyer did not fill in the area of the warrant describing the
items to be searched for. 	Upon receiving the documents from Judge Thyer, the officers
printed the affidavit and search warrant and kept them during the search. Doc. No. 35 at 3.
During the search of Harris’s home, the officers found methamphetamine, marijuana, scales,
baggies, firearms, and ammo. Id. The officers left a copy of the warrant inside the home
when they completed the search because no one was home during the search. Id.
Harris was indicted for (1) possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine; (2)
possession with intent to distribute cocaine; (3) possession of firearms in furtherance of a
drug trafficking crime; and (4) felon in possession of firearms. See Doc. No. 1. He is now
moving to suppress evidence seized at his home. The motion is denied without a hearing.
II. DISCUSSION
The motion to suppress is denied because the warrant adequately satisfies the Fourth
Amendment’s requirement that it “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.
Harris’s argument that the warrant violates the Forth Amendment because it fails to
sufficiently describe the items to be seized is understandable. The problem for Harris is that
“a description in the supporting affidavit can supply the requisite particularity if ‘(a) the
affidavit accompanies the warrant and (b) the warrant uses suitable words of reference’
incorporating” the affidavit. United States v. Curry, 911 F.2d 72, 77 (8th Cir. 1990).
2
Case 3:25-cr-00004-BSM Document 39 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 4

The affidavit in question described the drugs and money that would be seized. See
Gov. Ex. 1, Doc. No. 35. The agents also spoke with Judge Thyer before submitting the
documents, giving him an opportunity to limit the scope of the search, and Judge Thyer then
signed the search warrant and the affidavit. See United States v. Hamilton, 591 F.3d 1017,
1026 (8th Cir. 2010) (“the magistrate . . . signed the affidavit containing the limiting list of
items to be seized, which satisfied the concern . . . that it be clear that the magistrate had an
opportunity to restrict the scope of the search.”). Moreover, the warrant specifically referred
to the affidavit to explain the reason for the warrant. See United States v. Curry, 911 F.2d
at 77. Although the “items to be searched for” section was left blank, the affidavit, which
was already referenced, specifically listed the items. 	Additionally, the affidavit and the
warrant were kept together during the search. See Groh v. Ramirez. 540 U.S. 551, 558, 560
(2004) (the incorporated affidavit must accompany the warrant to satisfy the particularity
requirement). For these reasons, the warrant satisfies the particularity requirement regarding
the items to be searched for and seized.
Finally, the motion to suppress would be denied even if the affidavit were not properly
incorporated by reference because nothing indicates the officers’s behavior was “the type
of deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent disregard for the Fourth Amendment” that the
exclusionary rule was designed to deter. United States v. Szczerba, 897 F.3d 929, 939 (8th
Cir. 2018). Indeed, the actions of Calderon and Willey were objectively reasonable in light
of their knowledge of the relevant events. 	United States v. Hamilton, 591 F.3d at 1029.
3
Case 3:25-cr-00004-BSM Document 39 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 4

(objectively reasonable for experienced officer to rely on the warrant as incorporating the list
of items to be seized from the affidavit even if the words of incorporation were unclear).
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, Harris’s motion to suppress [Doc. No. 29] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of December, 2025.
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Case 3:25-cr-00004-BSM Document 39 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 4