United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
________________
No. 11-1890
________________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Kody R. Williams, *
*
Appellant. *
_______________
Submitted: November 17, 2011
Filed: February 28, 2012
________________
Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
________________
GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.
Kody R. Williams pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon,
conditioned on his right to appeal the district court’s1 denial of his motion to suppress
evidence obtained through the execution of a search warrant at his home. We affirm.
1
The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable John
T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
Williams challenges the constitutionality of a warrantless search of his garbage,
or “trash pull,” as well as the accuracy of an affidavit later used to procure a search
warrant. In the affidavit, Detective Matthew Miller of the Lee’s Summit, Missouri
Police Department averred that he received a tip on October 27, 2008 that Williams
was selling drugs at an identified address. The tip also stated that Williams had prior
convictions for drug trafficking and other felonies, and that the house at the identified
address might also be occupied by an individual named Sherry Mitchell. The
affidavit stated nothing regarding the reliability of any information previously
provided to law enforcement by the source.
The affidavit further stated that the water utilities account for the identified
address showed an active account in the name of Sherry Mitchell. It also noted that
Detective Miller had “retrieved three bags of trash that had been left at the curb for
pick-up by a trash company” at the identified address. Within that trash were two
torn pieces of a plastic bag coated with cocaine residue, several pieces of mail
addressed to Sherry Mitchell at that address, and a blank card of a type for use by
individuals on probation or parole with the Missouri Department of Corrections.
After discovering that Sherry Mitchell had no criminal history, Detective Miller
averred his belief that someone on probation or parole, such as Williams, likely also
resided at the identified address. Finally, Detective Miller stated that Williams had
given the identified address as his home address during at least six interactions with
police. A search executed pursuant to the ensuing search warrant yielded the
handgun and ammunition that served as the predicate for the charges and Williams’s
subsequent conditional guilty plea.
On appeal, Williams first argues that the district court should have held an
evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress evidence in order to determine the
precise location from which his trash was pulled. “We review a district court’s
decision whether to hold an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion.” United
States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688, 705 (8th Cir. 2011). The only evidence presented
-2-
to the district court regarding the location of the trash was Detective Miller’s
statement in his affidavit that he “retrieved three bags of trash that had been left at the
curb for pick-up by a trash company” (emphasis added). Nevertheless, in the brief
in support of the motion to suppress, Williams’s counsel contended that “the officers
illegally retrieved three trash bags from the driveway of the residence” (emphasis
added). To the extent Williams contends that the trash actually was not at the curb
as stated in the affidavit, he is challenging the factual accuracy of the affidavit. The
standard for obtaining an evidentiary hearing under these circumstances is the well-
known Franks standard:
There is, of course, a presumption of validity with respect to the
affidavit supporting the search warrant. To mandate an evidentiary
hearing, the challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory and must
be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must
be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the
truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof.
United States v. Mims, 812 F.2d 1068, 1074 (8th Cir. 1987) (quoting Franks v.
Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978)). Here, Williams proffered no affidavit or other
evidence indicating that the trash was not at the curb. As a result, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying an evidentiary hearing.
Williams also argues that the district court erred in denying the motion to
suppress because the trash was pulled from a location in which Williams retained
some expectation of privacy. We review “the district court’s factual determinations
in support of its denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its legal conclusions
de novo.” United States v. Hogan, 539 F.3d 916, 921 (8th Cir. 2008) (quoting United
States v. Harper, 466 F.3d 634, 643 (8th Cir. 2006)). The constitutionality of a trash
pull depends upon “whether the garbage was readily accessible to the public so as to
render any expectation of privacy objectively unreasonable.” United States v.
Comeaux, 955 F.2d 586, 589 (8th Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. Hedrick, 922
-3-
F.2d 396, 400 (7th Cir. 1991)). Once again, the only evidence in the record as to the
location from which the trash was pulled is Detective Miller’s statement in the
affidavit that he “retrieved three bags of trash that had been left at the curb for pick-
up by a trash company” (emphasis added). It is well settled that there is no
reasonable expectation of privacy in trash left at the curb in an area accessible to the
public for pick-up by a trash company. See, e.g., United States v. Trice, 864 F.2d
1421, 1423 (8th Cir. 1988) (citing California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 40-41
(1988)). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the denial of Williams’s motion to
suppress.
_____________________________
-4-