United States v. Martinez: The Tenth Circuit’s Firm Line on Suppression-Motion Waiver and the Ongoing Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) After Rahimi

Introduction

United States v. Martinez, No. 24-1301 (10th Cir. Aug. 13, 2025), presents two recurring criminal-procedure questions: (1) When, if ever, may an appellate court entertain a Fourth-Amendment suppression theory not raised below? and (2) Does the felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), remain constitutional after the Supreme Court’s recent Second-Amendment trilogy (Bruen, Rahimi, and their progeny)?

The appellant, Timothy Michael Martinez, was convicted of narcotics and firearms offenses after police obtained a warrant and discovered drugs and a handgun in his BMW. He challenged (i) denial of his suppression motion and (ii) § 922(g)(1)’s validity. The Tenth Circuit, in a unanimous, unpublished order and judgment, rejected both challenges and affirmed. The decision crystallises two principles:

Strict Waiver Rule: A defendant who omits a suppression argument in district court—not merely the facts, but the specific legal theory—waives it. Absent a showing of “good cause,” the court will not even conduct plain-error review.
Post-Rahimi Endurance of § 922(g)(1): The felon-in-possession ban survives facial constitutional attack under the Second Amendment, consistent with the Tenth Circuit’s earlier precedents (McCane and Vincent).

Summary of the Judgment

1. Suppression Issue. Martinez argued on appeal that Detective Juliano’s act of cupping his hands on the windshield constituted a common-law trespass barred by United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). The panel held:

Martinez never presented the “Juliano-trespass” theory in his written motion or at the suppression hearing; instead, he challenged Detective Vigil’s door-opening.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(C) requires such theories to be raised pre-trial; failure without good cause is waiver.
Following United States v. Anderson, 62 F.4th 1260 (10th Cir. 2023), waiver forecloses even plain-error review. Martinez showed no good cause; the court declined to consider the new theory.

2. Constitutionality of § 922(g)(1). Adopting the two-step historical-analogue test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), Martinez contended § 922(g)(1) is facially invalid. The panel held:

Binding circuit precedent—United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir. 2009), reaffirmed in Vincent v. Bondi, 127 F.4th 1263 (10th Cir. 2025)—upholds § 922(g)(1).
Because those precedents remain intact after Rahimi, any contrary conclusion would not be “plain” under Rule 52(b).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Rule 12 Waiver Lineage: United States v. Anderson (2023); United States v. Burke (2011); United States v. Lowe (2024). These cases stress that suppression theories must be timely and specifically asserted, or they are waived absent good cause.
Jones Trespass Theory: Cited by Martinez for the proposition that even a minimal physical intrusion on a protected area is a search. The panel distinguished it because the argument was procedurally barred, not substantively addressed.
Second-Amendment Framework: Bruen (2022) introduced the history-and-tradition test; United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024) refined it regarding dangerousness; ⟶ Tenth Circuit precedents McCane (2009) and Vincent (2023 & 2025) directly control felon-in-possession challenges.

Legal Reasoning

1. Waiver & “Good Cause.” The court treated Rule 12(c)(3)’s “good cause” requirement as a gateway to any appellate review for unraised suppression theories. “Good cause” means a legitimate inability to have raised the argument below—e.g., newly discovered facts or supervening legal authority. Martinez offered none; the legal basis (Jones) pre-dated his suppression hearing by over a decade, and the relevant facts (Juliano’s hand placement) were known and even photographed. Consequently, waiver, not merely forfeiture, applied, extinguishing plain-error analysis.

2. Application of Plain-Error Prong (Hypothetical). Although not obliged to, the panel observed that, even under plain-error review, Martinez’s trespass argument would fail because there was no binding authority holding that resting one’s hands on a windshield constitutes a Fourth-Amendment trespass. This reinforces the message that appellate litigants must preserve their theories.

3. Second-Amendment Challenge. The panel employed the four-part “plain error” test:

Error – Assuming arguendo that § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional.
Plain – Not plain because circuit precedent upholds the statute.
Affects substantial rights – Not reached.
Seriously affects the fairness/ integrity of proceedings – Not reached.

The court underscored that only the Supreme Court or an en banc Tenth Circuit may overrule McCane. Until then, § 922(g)(1) prosecutions remain valid within the circuit.

Impact

Litigation Practice: Defense counsel must articulate each discrete Fourth-Amendment theory in pre-trial motions. A catch-all reference to “plain view” or “trespass” will not suffice.
Law-Enforcement Techniques: Officers can be confident that, at least in the Tenth Circuit, simply cupping hands on a windshield to aid vision—without entering the vehicle—does not clearly offend the Fourth Amendment. But practitioners should note this question remains undecided on the merits.
Second Amendment Jurisprudence: Martinez cements the Tenth Circuit’s stance that felon disarmament laws survive Bruen and Rahimi. Future facial challenges in district courts within the circuit are effectively foreclosed.
Appellate Strategy: The decision warns litigants against banking on plain-error salvage for unpreserved suppression grounds; “good cause” is the threshold, not a formality.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Waiver vs. Forfeiture. – Waiver: Intentional relinquishment; appellate review barred. – Forfeiture: Neglectful failure; appellate court may review for plain error.
Plain-Error Review (Rule 52(b)). A four-part test allowing relief only for obvious, outcome-determinative errors seriously affecting judicial integrity.
“Good Cause” (Rule 12(c)(3)). A showing—usually new law or facts—that justifies raising a suppression issue late. Without it, the court calls the failure a waiver.
Historical-Analog Test (Bruen). The government must point to historical regulations analogous in purpose and burden to the challenged modern firearm restriction.
Facial vs. As-Applied Challenge. – Facial: The statute is unconstitutional in all applications. – As-Applied: Unconstitutional in the defendant’s particular circumstances.

Conclusion

United States v. Martinez reaffirms two central propositions of contemporary criminal jurisprudence in the Tenth Circuit. First, suppression arguments are not fungible; each specific legal theory must be clearly raised pre-trial or it is irretrievably lost absent a compelling, articulated reason. Second, despite evolving Second-Amendment doctrine, the felon-in-possession statute remains firmly constitutional under existing Tenth Circuit precedent. Together, these holdings promote procedural rigor in trial courts and provide doctrinal stability respecting firearm prohibitions on convicted felons.