Floyd

United States v. Floyd

Good Law
76 F. Supp. 3d 976·2014 WL 7273068·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176419
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaDecember 22, 2014Case No. 13-cr-00639-WHO-1California3,169 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Orrick, J.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Re: Dkt. No.

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Ryan Floyd seeks to suppress the search of a cave in Humboldt *978 County, California that netted 99 firearms because the Humboldt County Sheriffs Office (HCSO) lacked a reasonable suspicion to execute a probation search of the cave and further lacked a reasonable suspicion that Floyd owned the property where the cave was located. This is a close case, made murkier by deficiencies in the government’s arguments and evidence. I find, however, that the anonymous tip received by the HCSO provided sufficient suspicion to initiate the search and to seize the guns in the cave. Floyd’s motion to suppress is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

Floyd was a suspect in several burglaries and vehicle thefts in southern Humboldt County. On February 4, 2013, the HCSO received an anonymous tip that Floyd had “20-30 assault style rifles” and “several fully automatic firearms,” as well as “numerous amounts of methamphetamine and cocaine.” Dkt. No 21-1 at 8. The tipster also told the HCSO that there were ten to twelve stolen vehicles parked at Floyd’s residence. Id.

On February 7, 2013, the HCSO executed a probation search on the real…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.