United States v. Gaye, 2025 WL 758570 (10th Cir. 2025)
In Denver, Colorado, Joseph Gaye called 911 from his office and reported that a masked man had run into his office, shot him in the testicles and upper thigh, then ran out. When officers arrived, they found Gaye bleeding on the floor. The officers rendered aid, applying a tourniquet. After medical personnel transported Gaye to the hospital, officers saw a bullet casing on his desk. However, they found no sign of forced entry, struggle or the presence of another person. Based on the evidence, officers suspected Gaye had shot himself and falsely reported being shot by an intruder. The bullet trajectory and unique position of the injury suggested the man’s wound was self-inflicted.
Officers obtained a search warrant for Gaye’s office. In a locked drawer, underneath a document addressed to Gaye, they found a 9mm Sig Sauer semi-automatic firearm with an obliterated serial number along with two boxes of Luger 9mm ammunition. One round was missing from the gun’s magazine.
Get the Xiphos law enforcement legal update delivered to your inbox: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
A surgeon removed the bullet from Gaye’s leg at the hospital and dropped it into an evidence bag. Gaye, who was drifting in and out of consciousness, never said he wanted to keep the bullet, that the bullet was his, or that the hospital could not release the bullet to the police. Ballistics testing showed the bullet was fired from the handgun found in Gaye’s drawer.
Gaye was indicted and convicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm. He asked the trial court to suppress the evidence obtained from the search warrant and the bullet removed from his leg. The judge denied Gaye’s motion to suppress, finding the search warrant was adequately supported by probable cause and executed in good faith. The court also ruled Gaye had consented to the removal of the bullet, thus relinquishing any privacy interest in it.
On rare occasions, a search warrant may be used to obtain evidence from a suspect through surgical means. Typically, the target of this type of search is a bullet. Such searches are restricted by the severe test of weighing the medical dangers of the surgery, the degree of intrusion into the suspect’s interests in privacy and bodily dignity, and the societal interest in determining guilt or innocence (Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985)). There are other internally intrusive searches that also require a warrant. For example, in People v. Scott (145 Cal. Rptr. 876 (Cal. 1984) a judge issued a warrant permitting a physician to massage a man’s prostate gland to obtain a semen sample at the request of police. This was not such a case. In Gaye’s case, the bullet was removed from his body as part of medical treatment. No one sought or received a warrant for the bullet.
Gaye, who was drifting in and out of consciousness, never said he wanted to keep the bullet, that the bullet was his, or that the hospital could not release the bullet to the police.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision. According to the 10th Circuit, the search warrant for Gaye’s office was sufficiently specific and executed in good faith. The court also found Gaye had consented to the removal of the bullet when he consented to medical treatment; thus, there was no Fourth Amendment violation. The court concluded the evidence obtained from the search and the bullet itself were admissible, and Gaye’s weapons conviction was upheld. At the end of the day, Gaye may have the best story to share with his fellow inmates in federal prison.
