996 F.3d 330
6th Cir.2021Background
- DEA investigation traced a Mexico-based trafficking ring (Rivas-Lopez brothers) supplying Louisville dealers; undercover intel identified a planned 10-kg cocaine delivery to a “Louisville distributor.”
- Toll analysis identified a prepaid phone used to contact Freddy Rivas-Lopez; state court issued a warrant to obtain its location data; pings placed the phone at Terrace Creek Apartments and later at Crescent Centre Apartments.
- Officers observed a Ford Expedition rented to Sheckles at both complexes and linked the Crescent Centre unit to an anonymous tip, smelled marijuana there, and saw Sheckles’s vehicle in the unit’s assigned spot.
- While officers were obtaining warrants, they stopped Sheckles as he left Crescent Centre, smelled marijuana, detained him pending a K-9, the dog alerted, and a handgun was found; warrants were then executed.
- Search of Crescent Centre produced ~1.5 kg heroin, meth, and firearms; Terrace Creek search (officer entry while Sheckles’s girlfriend Cristal Flores was present) produced the pinged phone and paperwork; Flores later signed consent to search a storage unit that yielded substantial cash.
- Sheckles pleaded guilty under a conditional plea, reserving his right to appeal the district court’s denial of his suppression motion; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Sheckles' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for phone-tracking warrant | Affidavit showed only that a known trafficker called another phone; insufficient nexus after deal fell through | Undercover tip + toll analysis linked the phone to the distributor and a pending large deal; pinging would likely ID the distributor | Warrant supported by substantial basis; probable cause existed for tracking phone |
| Probable cause for Crescent Centre warrant | Anonymous tip and odor of marijuana were unreliable and could reflect mere use | Tip corroborated by officer smell, building employee smell, and other investigative facts tying Sheckles to trafficking | Probable cause existed to search Crescent Centre (residence-specific corroboration sufficient) |
| Probable cause for Terrace Creek warrant (residence of Sheckles) | Status as a dealer alone is insufficient to show drugs at home | Affidavit showed large-scale, ongoing trafficking, phone pinged at Terrace Creek, and phone likely contained evidence | Nexus adequate: collective facts (ongoing operation + phone ping) supported warrant |
| Vehicle stop and detention (Terry stop / continued detention) | Stop was an arrest without probable cause; 48-minute K-9 wait was unreasonably prolonged | Officers had reasonable suspicion to stop (investigative stop while obtaining warrant); smell of marijuana and dog alert justified continued detention and arrest | Initial stop reasonable; smell provided at least reasonable suspicion (if not probable cause); continued detention for K-9 and subsequent arrest were lawful |
| Storage-unit search: voluntariness and authority of consent | Flores was coerced by a midnight armed entry, and lacked authority over the unit | Flores signed consent after initial show of force had dissipated; facility records (later obtained) showed Flores authorized access | Consent was voluntary; Flores had actual authority to consent (listed on rental agreement), so search was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (U.S. 2018) (addressing privacy and warrants for cellphone location data)
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (U.S. 2018) (probable cause is not a high bar; standard guidance)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances and "substantial basis" review for probable cause)
- Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1967) (warrant to seize instrumentalities and evidence; nexus considerations)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (permitting brief investigative stops on reasonable suspicion)
- Hensley v. Carter, 469 U.S. 221 (U.S. 1985) (Terry stops to investigate completed crimes)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (U.S. 2015) (limits on prolonging stops beyond mission of traffic stop)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness standard for consent searches)
- Matlock v. United States, 415 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1974) (third-party actual authority and shared use for consent)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (U.S. 1990) (apparent authority to consent searches)