United States v. Banks

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2018 · Criminal Procedure

884 F.3d 998 (2018)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentexigent circumstancescell phone pingreal-time location trackingprotective sweepprobable causeinformant corroboration

Facts

Police investigating the Rollin 90s Crips obtained an arrest warrant for Banks based on an affidavit describing overlapping confidential-informant reports and corroborating investigation linking him to a cocaine-base trafficking organization. After an informant reported that Banks threatened to shoot him, officers had T-Mobile ping Banks' phone, which led them to a house in Spencer, Oklahoma, where Banks surrendered after a standoff; officers then conducted a protective sweep and observed drugs, guns, and manufacturing-related items in plain view. At trial, witnesses also testified that Banks directed girlfriends and his mother to send money orders and make deposits with cash he provided, and other evidence connected him to cocaine-base distribution and manufacturing.

Issue

Whether the district court should have suppressed evidence obtained after officers located Banks by pinging his phone and conducted a protective sweep of the Spencer house, and whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to support his convictions. The court also considered whether certain overview testimony and Rule 404(b) evidence were properly admitted.

Rule

An arrest warrant is supported by probable cause when, under the totality of the circumstances, there is a substantial probability that a crime has been committed and that the named individual committed it; consistent informant reports may corroborate one another, and police need not arrange controlled buys if other information reasonably corroborates the informants' statements. Assuming that real-time phone pinging is a Fourth Amendment search, it is reasonable without a warrant when exigent circumstances give officers an objectively reasonable basis to believe there is an immediate need to protect lives or safety and the manner and scope of the search are reasonable. A protective sweep incident to arrest is permitted when articulable facts and rational inferences would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing the area harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene, and officers may seize incriminating items in plain view while conducting such a lawful sweep.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Detectives in Tulsa seek an arrest warrant for Devin Ortiz for leading a fentanyl-distribution ring. Their affidavit reports that three confidential informants independently described the same hierarchy, two identified Ortiz as a high-level organizer, and officers corroborated several details by confirming a stash-apartment lease and repeated visits by the alleged leader, but they never arranged a controlled buy from Ortiz.

If Ortiz moves to quash the arrest warrant on the ground that the affidavit lacked probable cause because no controlled buy was conducted, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that probable cause for an arrest warrant exists when the totality of the circumstances shows a substantial probability that a crime was committed and that the named person committed it. Consistent reports from multiple informants may corroborate one another, and police may also corroborate details through other investigation. The opinion specifically rejects any requirement that officers arrange a controlled buy or personally observe the suspect's dealing if other known facts reasonably corroborate the informants' statements.