Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-akd-4_24-cr-00019-3
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE MOISES ROMERO, JR.,
Defendant.
Case No. 4:24-cr-00019-TMB
ORDER ON FIRST MOTION IN
LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN
FIREARM EVIDENCE
[DKT. 140]
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant George Moises Romero, Jr.’s Motion in
Limine to Exclude Certain Firearm Evidence at Docket 140 (the “Motion”). The United States of
America (the “Government”) opposes the Motion. 1 For the following reasons, Romero’s Motion
is DENIED.
II. BACKGROUND
The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and proceedings in this
case. On June 4, 2024, Alaska State Troopers (“AST”) arrested Romero in a semi -wooded area.2
Romero was carrying a red duffle bag. 3 When AST arrived at Romero’s location, they shouted
commands at Romero, and he complied, walking back toward the officers.4 He left the red duffle
bag he had been carrying where he had been standing. 5 AST placed him under arrest, then AST
1 Dkt. 152 (Government’s Response to Defendant’s First Motion in Limine).
2 Dkt. 140 (Defendant’s First Motion in Limine) at 1; Dkt. 152 at 2.
3 Dkt. 140 at 2; Dkt. 152 at 2.
4 Dkt. 140 at 2; Dkt. 152 at 2.
5 Dkt. 140 at 2; Dkt. 152 at 2.
Case 4:24-cr-00019-TMB-SAO Document 187 Filed 03/26/25 Page 1 of 8
2
Norris retrieved the bag.6 AST Norris briefly searched the bag for weapons and found none. 7 He
asked Romero if Romero wanted him to drop the bag off “at [Romero’s] buddy’s place” nearby,
but Romero did not answer affirmatively.8 AST Norris then brought the bag to the AST Post “for
safekeeping.”9 AST Norris provided Romero a card with instructions on obtaining his property
from AST custody.10
The next day, AST Norris searched the bag to ensure there were no perishables, hazardous
items, or any valuables that AST needed to document for safekeeping. 11 During that search he
discovered a Ruger Super Blackhawk .454 Casull revolver .12 AST Norris stopped his search and
applied for a search warrant.13 The warrant was granted and executed.14
Romero now files the Motion arguing that the firearm and all other evidence found inside
the red duffle bag should be excluded at trial. 15 He argues that the search was not a lawful search
incident to arrest and that seizure of the bag was unlawful. 16 He also argues that search was not a
lawful inventory search because it was not done in good faith and there was no evidence that it
complied with required AST policy.17 Last, Romero argues that later-obtained search warrant did
not cure the taint of the illegal search.18
6 Dkt. 140 at 2; Dkt. 152 at 3.
7 Dkt. 140 at 2; Dkt. 152 at 3.
8 Dkt. 168 at 3 (Defendant’s Supplemental Filing); Dkt. 168 (Conventionally Filed Exhibit 1: Post-
Arrest Videorecording) (hereinafter “Ex. 1”).
9 Dkt. 140 at 2; Dkt. 152 at 3.
10 Dkt. 140 at 2; Dkt. 152 at 3.
11 Dkt. 140 at 2; Dkt. 152 at 3.
12 Dkt. 140 at 3; Dkt. 152 at 3.
13 Dkt. 140 at 3; Dkt. 152 at 3.
14 Dkt. 140 at 3; Dkt. 152 at 3.
15 Dkt. 140 at 6.
16 Id. at 3–4.
17 Id. at 4–5.
18 Id. at 5.
Case 4:24-cr-00019-TMB-SAO Document 187 Filed 03/26/25 Page 2 of 8
3
The Government responds in opposition, arguing that Romero was arrested while in
possession of the duffle bag, making the search a lawful search incident to arrest.19 Even if it was
not a lawful search incident to arrest, the Government asserts it was a lawful administrative search
and provides a copy of applicable policy.20
Romero supplemented his Motion with a video of his conversation with AST Norris post-
arrest and argues that , because Romero asked to “go to [his] buddy’s place to grab [his] legal
work,” he never refused to answer AST Norris’s question about dropping the bag off with a
friend.21
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Motions in Limine
“A motion in limine is a procedural device to obtain an early and preliminary ruling on the
admissibility of evidence”22 and may be used to request evidence be either excluded or admitted
before trial.23 Motions in limine are appropriate when the “mere mention of evidence during trial
would be highly prejudicial.”24
Motions in limine “should not be used to resolve factual issues or weigh evidence.” 25 The
purpose of a motion in limine is to “exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before the evidence
19 Dkt. 152 at 4–5.
20 Dkt. 152 at 5–6; Dkt. 152-1 (Department of Public Safety Operating Procedures Manual).
21 Dkt. 168 at 2–3; Ex. 1.
22 Barnard v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, No. 2:03-cv-01524-RCJ-LRL, 2011 WL 221710, at
*1 (D. Nev. Jan. 21, 2011); Rsch. Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , No. CV -01-658-TUC-
RCJ, 2009 WL 2971755, at *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 19, 2009).
23 See Fed. R. Evid. 103; United States v. Williams, 939 F.2d 721, 723 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming
district court’s ruling in limine that prosecution could admit impeachment evidence under Federal
Rule of Evidence 609).
24 Barnard, 2011 WL 221710, at *1 (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1109 (9th ed. 2009)); Rsch.
Corp. Techs., 2009 WL 2971755, at *1 (similar).
25 Barnard, 2011 WL 221710, at *1 (citations omitted); BNSF Ry. Co. v. Quad City Testing Lab.,
Inc., No. CV -07-170-BLG-RFC, 2010 WL 4534406, at *1 (D. Mont. Oct. 28, 2010) (citations
omitted); Rsch. Corp. Techs., 2009 WL 2971755, at *1 (citations omitted).
Case 4:24-cr-00019-TMB-SAO Document 187 Filed 03/26/25 Page 3 of 8
4
is actually offered.”26 “A motion in limine is not the proper vehicle for seeking a dispositive ruling
on a claim, particularly after the deadline for filing such motions has passed.” 27
“[I]n limine rulings are not binding on the trial judge, and the judge may always change
his mind during the course of a trial.”28 A court’s rulings on motions in limine are provisional and
may be reconsidered during the course of trial.29 A denial of a motion in limine merely means that
the court is unable to determine whether the evidence should be excluded outside of the context of
trial.30 Otherwise, “evidentiary rulings should be deferred until trial so that questions of
foundation, relevancy and potential prejudice may be resolved in proper context.”31
B. Inventory Searches
Law enforcement must have lawful possession of an item before conducting an inventory
search.32 An inventory search must comply with established procedure and be conducted in good
faith.33 However, “[w]hen the police conduct would have been the same regardless of the officer’s
26 Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n. 2 (1984) (describing purpose of motion in limine).
27 Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank, 735 F.3d 1158, 1162 n.4 (9th Cir. 2013), aff’d, 574 U.S. 418, 135
S. Ct. 907, 190 L. Ed. 2d 800 (2015) (citing Dubner v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 266 F.3d 959, 968 (9th
Cir.2001).
28 Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758, n.3 (2000).
29 Barnard, 2011 WL 221710, at *2 (citing, inter alia, Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 758
n.3 (2000)); Rsch. Corp. Techs., 2009 WL 2971755, at *2 (same).
30 Barnard, 2011 WL 221710, at *2; BNSF, 2010 WL 4534406, at *1; Rsch. Corp. Techs., 2009
WL 2971755, at *2.
31 Barnard, 2011 WL 221710, at *1 (citations omitted); BNSF, 2010 WL 4534406, at *1 (citations
omitted); Rsch. Corp. Techs., 2009 WL 2971755, at *1 (citations omitted).
32 United States v. Mancera-Londono, 912 F.2d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[B]efore an inventory
search is permissible, the government must have legitimate custody of the property to be
inventoried, either as a result of lawful arrest or by some other method.”) (quoting United States
v. Jenkins, 876 F.2d 1085, 1089 (2d Cir. 1989) (alteration in original)).
33 United States v. Bowhay, 992 F.2d 229, 230 (9th Cir. 1993) (“To be valid, an inventory search
must conform to a standardized and established local procedure, and must be motivated by a
‘concern to inventory [the items] rather than to search for other incriminating evidence.’ ” (citation
omitted) (alteration in original)).
Case 4:24-cr-00019-TMB-SAO Document 187 Filed 03/26/25 Page 4 of 8
5
subjective state of mind, no purpose is served by attempting to tease out the officer ’s ‘true’
motivation.”34
In Illinois v. Lafayette, the Supreme Court held that “it is not ‘unreasonable’ for police, as
part of the routine procedure incident to incarcerating an arrested person, to search any container
or article in his possession, in accordance with established inventory procedures .”35 In Lafayette,
police lawfully arrested an individual and searched a bag in his possession, in accordance with the
department’s “standard procedure to inventory ‘everything’ in the possession of an arrested
person.”36 The Supreme Court addressed the lawfulness of the search under the Fourth
Amendment.37 The Court explained that “[a]t the stationhouse, it is entirely proper for police to
remove and list or inventory property found on the person or in the possession of an arrested person
who is to be jailed.”38 The Court gave four governmental interests that support inventory searches:
precluding theft by law enforcement, false claims of possession by the arrestee, avoidance of injury
from a dangerous instrumentality concealed in “innocent -looking articles,” and assistance with
verifying the arrestee’s identity.39 An inventory search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment
even if it is not the least restrictive method law enforcement could have employed to achieve its
governmental interests.40
34 Id. at 231 (citing Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)).
35 462 U.S. 640, 648 (1983).
36 Id. at 642.
37 Id. at 643 (“The question here is whether, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable
for police to search the personal effects of a person under lawful arrest as part of the routine
administrative procedure at a police stationhouse incident to booking and jailing the suspect.”).
38 Id. at 646.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 647.
Case 4:24-cr-00019-TMB-SAO Document 187 Filed 03/26/25 Page 5 of 8
6
IV. ANALYSIS
As a threshold matter, this Motion appears to be an untimely Motion to Suppress. Motions
in limine “should not be used to resolve factual issues or weigh evidence.” 41 Nevertheless, the
Court will address the evidentiary issue it raises on the merits.
First, the Court finds that AST had lawful possession of the bag when AST searched the
bag. Law enforcement may reasonably search a container in the possession of a person who had
been lawfully arrested.42 The Court has already ruled that Romero was lawfully arrested pursuant
to his warrant.43 Although Romero set down the red duffle bag before walking backwards toward
the officers who then handcuffed him; the red duffle bag had been in his possession when AST
contacted him to initiate the arrest. Therefore, it was in AST’s “legitimate custody” after Romero
was arrested.44
The Court also finds that the inventory search conducted by AST Norris complied with
established procedures and was conducted in good faith. Pursuant to the Department of Public
Safety Operating Procedures Manual (“OPM”) 202.30:
Employees will properly handle or secure property or evidence that
comes into their possession . It will be the responsibility of the
employee who acquires the property to prepare the necessary
reports(s)[ and] identify such property.45
* * *
If an employee is unable to complete the proper packaging and
delivery of the property . . . prior to the end of his shift he may . . .
41 Barnard, 2011 WL 221710, at *1 (citations omitted).
42 See Lafayette, 462 U.S. at 648 (1983).
43 Dkt. 175 (Order Denying Motion in Limine).
44 Mancera-Londono, 912 F.2d at 376; see Bowhay, 922 F.2d at 230 (affirming reasonableness of
inventory search of “satchel” which defendant had been carrying before arrest but which he “threw
. . . under a nearby car” upon seeing law enforcement officer and was subsequently arrested).
45 Dkt. 152-1 at 2.
Case 4:24-cr-00019-TMB-SAO Document 187 Filed 03/26/25 Page 6 of 8
7
temporarily store the property in an “evidence drop.” The employee
will complete the proper storage process on the following day.46
As AST Norris was the officer who seized the duffle bag, it was his obligation to inventory and
store the bag pursuant to OPM 202.30. Therefore, the inventory search complied with established
procedure.
The Government contends that AST Norris brought the red duffle bag back to the AST
post for “safekeeping” and searched it to “ensure there were no perishables, hazardous items, or
any valuables that needed documented before placing the red duffle bag into safekeeping.”47 The
Court need not inquire into AST’s Norris’s subjective motivation to determine whether the search
was conducted in good faith if “police conduct would have been the same regardless of the officer’s
subjective state of mind .”48 Because the search complied with relevant policy, the Court finds it
would have occurred regardless of AST Norris’s subjective motivation for the search and was
therefore conducted in good faith. Therefore, the inventory search of the red duffle bag was
reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
As the Court finds that the search of the bag was a lawful inventory search, it need not
reach Romero’s other arguments that the search was not a lawful search incident to arrest or that
the later-obtained search warrant failed to attenuate the taint of an illegal search.49
46 Id.
47 Dkt. 152 at 5–6.
48 Bowhay, 922 F.2d at 231.
49 Dkt. 140 at 3–5.
Case 4:24-cr-00019-TMB-SAO Document 187 Filed 03/26/25 Page 7 of 8
8
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Romero’s Motion in Limine at Docket 140 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 26th day of March, 2025.
/s/ ___________________
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Timothy M. Burgess
Case 4:24-cr-00019-TMB-SAO Document 187 Filed 03/26/25 Page 8 of 8