59 F.4th 232
6th Cir.2023Background
- A known confidential informant (CI) told police Antwone Sanders sold heroin/fentanyl from an apartment at 2852 Yellowstone Parkway, Apartment D; police conducted two supervised controlled buys using that CI.
- In both buys the CI purchased drugs from Sanders in a silver Chrysler; officers followed Sanders’ vehicle and observed it travel directly between the buy locations and the Yellowstone Parkway apartment on two occasions.
- Officer Hazlewood’s affidavit for a state search warrant recited the CI tip and the two surveillance episodes but did not describe the CI’s reliability or the CI’s basis of knowledge, nor did it state the affiant’s training/experience.
- A magistrate issued the warrant; the search produced drugs, paraphernalia, and firearms. Sanders was federally indicted on drug and firearms counts, moved to suppress and for discovery/Franks hearing, and pleaded guilty conditionally reserving the suppression issue.
- The district court denied suppression (also invoking Leon good faith) and denied supplemental discovery and a Franks hearing. The Sixth Circuit majority reversed, holding the affidavit failed to establish probable cause and the good-faith exception did not save the search; convictions and sentence were vacated and the case remanded. (Judge Nalbandian dissented.)
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Sanders) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / nexus to residence | CI tip plus officer surveillance of Sanders traveling between buys and the apartment established a fair probability drugs/evidence were at the apartment | CI’s reliability and basis of knowledge were not alleged; surveillance (entering/exiting apt) was insufficient to show Sanders lived there or that evidence would be in the apartment | Reversed — affidavit failed to establish probable cause or the required nexus to the apartment |
| Good-faith exception (Leon) | Even if warrant lacked probable cause, officers reasonably relied on the magistrate; doctrine applies | Affidavit was effectively "bare bones"; reliance was objectively unreasonable so Leon does not save the search | Reversed — good-faith exception does not apply; affidavit too deficient to make officer reliance reasonable |
| Supplemental discovery re: controlled buys | Discovery would reveal CI identity or privileged information and was not material | Requested case reports/drug evidence from controlled buys were material to suppression/Franks challenges | Not decided on merits by the panel (suppression relief made further rulings unnecessary); district court had denied discovery |
| Franks hearing (alleged false statements) | Affidavit contained no knowingly false statements warranting Franks relief | Affidavit included false or recklessly made statements; a Franks hearing was required | Not reached by the majority (unnecessary after finding lack of probable cause and suppression) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (entitlement to hearing when affidavit contains knowingly false statements or reckless disregard)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant tips and probable cause)
- Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (warrant must show reasonable cause that the things to be seized are located on the property)
- United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591 (en banc) (nexus requirement between place searched and evidence sought)
- United States v. Sumlin, 956 F.3d 879 (probable cause analysis requires showing trafficking, residence, and connection that evidence will be found at residence)
- United States v. Brown, 828 F.3d 375 (a defendant’s status as a dealer alone insufficient to infer nexus to residence)
- United States v. Higgins, 557 F.3d 381 (informant tip lacking indicia of reliability/basis of knowledge is insufficient)
- United States v. Helton, 314 F.3d 812 (known-informant tips must include some indicia of reliability; sparse details have little weight)
- United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490 (good-faith exception can apply where a minimally sufficient nexus appears in the affidavit)