Julie Peffer v. Mike Stephens, 880 F.3d 256

Background

In July 2014, Sgt. Mike Stephens obtained and executed a warrant to search the Peffers’ home for documents and computer-related items allegedly linked to mailings that identified a confidential informant and impersonated a police officer; prosecutors later declined charges.
The warrant was based on an affidavit describing (a) earlier letters and fliers naming Tom Beemer as a confidential informant, (b) timing linking the mailings to events involving Mr. Peffer, (c) Trooper Glentz’s receipt of suspicious seed packages while trying to contact Peffer, and (d) similarities among the mailings.
The affidavit sought materials “pertaining to Thomas Owen Beemer,” including documents created or stored on computers, and mail items matching those seized.
The Peffers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing the affidavit failed to (1) show a crime had been committed and (2) establish a nexus between the alleged crimes/evidence and the Bierri Road residence; they also argued qualified immunity did not apply.
The district court granted summary judgment for Stephens; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding (a) even if criminality were doubtful the law was not clearly established, and (b) the affidavit established a sufficient nexus between alleged computer-generated mailings and the residence.

Issues

Issue	Peffer's Argument	Stephens' Argument	Held
1. Whether affidavit showed probable cause that a crime (witness intimidation / impersonating an officer) was committed	The letters/fliers could not, as a matter of law, constitute those crimes; affidavit therefore failed to establish criminality	Affidavit alleged facts supporting reasonable belief Beemer was a potential witness and that mailings could intimidate / impersonate; state-law application was unsettled	Court declined to decide the state-law question; held law was not clearly established and thus Stephens entitled to qualified immunity
2. Whether affidavit established nexus that evidence of the mailings (including computer files) would be at the Peffer residence	No direct proof Peffer authored mailings; no assertion he owned or kept a computer at the residence so no fair probability evidence would be there	Totality of circumstances (temporal connection, motive unique to Peffer, postal origin, similar computer-generated items, Peffer’s residence) supported inference that electronically stored evidence would be at home	Court held magistrate could reasonably infer that a computer used to create/send the mailings would likely be at Peffer’s residence; nexus satisfied
3. Whether any false/misleading statements in the affidavit defeated reliance on the warrant	Affidavit contained misleading statements about postal sorting, similarities among mailings, and Peffer’s residence statements; thus probable cause was undermined	Alleged inaccuracies were not deliberate or recklessly made, and none were material to probable cause given the affidavit’s other corroborating facts	Court held Peffers failed to show deliberate/reckless falsehoods material to the probable-cause finding

Key Cases Cited

Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (2012) (qualified immunity and objective good faith reliance on a magistrate’s warrant)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity framework and sequencing of inquiries)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith reliance on a judicial warrant)
Greene v. Reeves, 80 F.3d 1101 (6th Cir. 1996) (probable cause standard for searches)
United States v. Brown, 828 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2016) (nexus analysis and limits on inferring residence connection for drug cases)
United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2006) (affidavit must suggest a fair probability that the specific things to be seized are located on the property)
United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2008) (magistrate may infer nexus from the type of crime and nature of items sought)
United States v. Elbe, 774 F.3d 885 (6th Cir. 2014) (upholding nexus where defendant had observable computer access near residence)