United States v. Weiland

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005 · Evidence

420 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2005)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceFed. R. Crim. P. 41Special Deputy U.S. MarshalsuppressionRule 902(4)Rule 902(2)Rule 902(11)Rule 803(8)

Facts

A Spokane County detective obtained a federal search warrant for Weiland's home while specially deputized as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal and expressly authorized to seek and execute search warrants supporting a federal task force. Officers executed the warrant and seized two rifles and ammunition, and the government charged Weiland under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At trial, the government introduced a certified Oklahoma penitentiary packet containing four second-degree burglary convictions, fingerprints, and a photograph to prove Weiland's felon status. At sentencing, the government also submitted the Oklahoma informations and judgments for those burglary convictions to support an ACCA enhancement.

Issue

Whether the search evidence had to be suppressed because the warrant was requested by a specially deputized local officer; whether the Oklahoma conviction records, fingerprints, and photograph were properly admitted under the Federal Rules of Evidence, § 1738, and the Confrontation Clause; whether admission of four prior convictions was unfairly prejudicial; and whether the Oklahoma burglaries supported ACCA sentencing and the sentence otherwise violated the Sixth Amendment.

Rule

A state or local officer specially deputized as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal is a 'federal law enforcement officer' for Rule 41 purposes when acting in that capacity. Public records must be authenticated under Rule 902(4), not by circumventing that rule through Rule 902(11), and routine public records such as judgments, fingerprints, and photographs are admissible under Rules 803(8) and, for convictions, 803(22). Suppression for a Rule 41 violation is required only if the violation is of constitutional magnitude, prejudices the defendant, or reflects intentional and deliberate disregard of the rule.

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.

In Portland, Oregon, Detective Elena Cruz of the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office was specially deputized by the U.S. Marshals Service to support a federal firearms task force and expressly authorized to seek and execute federal search warrants. While investigating suspected federal gun offenses, she applied to a federal magistrate for a warrant and identified herself in the affidavit as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal.

If the defendant moves to suppress on the ground that only a local officer requested the federal warrant, how should the court rule?

Explanation. Rule 41 permits a warrant to issue at the request of a federal law enforcement officer or attorney for the government. A local officer who has been specially deputized as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal and who seeks the warrant in that federal capacity is a federal law enforcement officer for Rule 41 purposes. Because Cruz acted under her special deputation and within its authorization, the warrant request was proper.