United States v. Jayson Moore

In United States v. Moore, No. 21-10345 (5th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s convictions for unlawfully possessing firearms as a convicted felon while subject to a domestic violence protective order. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (g)(8). It rejected Moore’s challenge to his arrest warrant, his suppression argument, and his argument of prejudice based on a text message received by a juror.

Holding 1: The arrest warrant was valid because it included Moore’s correct name, which satisfies the constitutional requirement that a warrant identify the target with sufficient particularly. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(b)(1)(A); Wanger v. Bonner, 621 F.2d 675, 682 (5th Cir. 1980). Additionally, an arresting officer need not possess the actual warrant when making the arrest. See Barnes v. Madison, 79 F. App’x 691, 703 (5th Cir. 2003) (unpublished).

Holding 2: The district court correctly ruled that officers did not need a warrant to seize firearms and ammunition from a pawn shop. Moore argued that he had “both a ‘possessory interest’ and a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ in the firearms that he had pawned.” But Moore had “repeatedly denied being the owner or the person who pawned the firearms,” so he failed to prove that he had a sufficient interest in the firearms, which meant he could not prove a legitimate expectation of privacy.

Holding 3: During Moore’s trial, a juror received a text message from an unknown phone number that said “guilty.” She then showed that message to another juror. Upon learning of this, the district court “(1) conducted an investigation into the matter; (2) held a hearing with all parties present and in which each party could question the jurors who had seen the message, as well as the sender of the message; (3) determined that the text message would not prejudice any party; and (4) permitted the two jurors who had seen the message to stay on the jury.” Moreover, Moore declined to question the juror and “stated that he was willing to waive any argument concerning whether anyone should be excused from the jury in case of an appeal.” Given all that, the Fifth Circuit found no error.