635 F. App'x 324
6th Cir.2016Background
- Between Jan–May 2013 Bucio-Cabrales and co-conspirators stored, packaged, and distributed large quantities of marijuana and kilograms of cocaine from an apartment that faces Stelzer Road but is officially on Migration Lane. DEA surveillance, an informant-controlled buy, and other corroborating observations led agents to seek a search warrant.
- Agent Durbin’s affidavit described the residence (two-story, tan siding, numerals “4020” on front door) but mistakenly listed the street as "4020 Stelzer Road" rather than 4020 Migration Lane because the unit faces Stelzer Road. A magistrate issued the warrant using the mistaken street name.
- Agents executed the warrant at the surveilled unit and seized ~200 lbs. of marijuana, cocaine, two firearms, ledgers, packaging materials, and cash; some items were found in Bucio-Cabrales’s bedroom/bathroom alongside personal effects.
- Bucio-Cabrales moved to suppress, sought a Franks hearing alleging false statements in the affidavit, and argued the warrant lacked particularity and probable cause. The district court denied suppression; he was tried, convicted on two conspiracy counts, and received a below-Guidelines 144-month sentence.
- At sentencing the PSR recommended two two-level enhancements: §3B1.1 for a leadership role (based largely on co-defendant Cortez-Torres’s testimony) and §2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a firearm (based on a gun found in Bucio-Cabrales’s bedroom). Bucio-Cabrales objected but the court imposed both enhancements.
Issues
| Issue | Bucio‑Cabrales’ Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Franks hearing — affidavit contained false statements (wrong street) | Affidavit knowingly/recklessly misstated address; warrants relied on falsehoods | Error was an innocent/misunderstood mistake; affiant did not act recklessly; defendant failed to make substantial preliminary showing | No Franks hearing — defendant failed to show knowing or reckless falsity; plain error review fails because mistake was understandable |
| 2) Particularity — warrant did not describe the place to be searched with sufficient specificity | Street-name error made warrant constitutionally deficient and risked wrong-location search | Warrant described distinctive physical features ("4020" on black door, tan two‑story unit) and executing agents knew target; low risk of searching wrong premises | Warrant sufficiently particular; description enabled officers to locate/identify the correct premises |
| 3) Probable cause / nexus — affidavit failed to link alleged drug activity to residence; good‑faith exception inapplicable | Surveillance and affidavit do not show nexus between drug activity and 4020 Migration Lane; presence alone insufficient | Affidavit supplied reliable evidence tying Cortez‑Torres’s drug activity to the residence (observed trips to the unit, deliveries, drugs concealed on person), satisfying nexus; Leon good‑faith alternative | No plain error; affidavit established probable cause tying residence to drug trafficking; good‑faith not needed but supports admission |
| 4) Sentencing enhancements (§3B1.1 leadership; §2D1.1(b)(1) weapon) | Insufficient evidence: leadership not supported by corroboration; weapon not shown to be connected to offense | Credible testimony and corroborating evidence (ledgers, cash, role during leader’s absence) support leadership; gun found in defendant’s bedroom and items linking bedroom to drug activity support weapon enhancement | Both enhancements upheld: district court reasonably credited witness, and defendant failed to rebut presumption linking firearm to offense |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (defendant must make substantial preliminary showing of deliberate or reckless falsehood to obtain Franks hearing)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Durk, 149 F.3d 464 (6th Cir.) (particularity test and when inaccuracies do not cause a constitutional violation)
- United States v. Gahagan, 865 F.2d 1490 (6th Cir.) (warrant particularity standard)
- United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518 (6th Cir.) (presence alone insufficient to establish nexus for residence search)
- United States v. Van Shutters, 163 F.3d 331 (6th Cir.) (nexus requirement for residence warrants)
- United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. en banc) (probable cause and nexus principles applied to residence searches)