501 F. App'x 431
6th Cir.2012Background
- Mohammed was convicted of possession with intent to distribute heroin and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime following a July 21, 2009 buy-bust operation.
- Police relied on an informant and recorded calls to establish probable cause and to locate Mohammed at 2704 Eden Avenue; K-9s indicated drugs at the Mercedes and the apartment.
- Mohammed was arrested at a Shell gas-station lot; a loaded .45 handgun was found in his car; a K-9 sniff and apartment-entry followed, leading to the apartment search.
- The apartment search yielded approximately 883.61 grams of heroin, a digital scale, a kilo wrapper, and matching ammunition; a firearm and cash supported the § 924(c) charge.
- A superseding indictment added a firearms charge; Mohammed challenged suppression motions, challenged sufficiency of evidence for the firearm conviction, and raised various Confrontation/inspection issues; the district court denied the suppression motions and Mohammed was sentenced to 157 months, which he appeals, challenging multiple issues; the appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of apartment search | Mohammed: entry into common area without a warrant violated Fourth Amendment. | Government: tainted evidence tainted the warrant, but untainted portions still supported probable cause. | Probable cause remained with untainted information; independent-source rule applied; suppression denied. |
| Second motion to suppress | Mohammed: district court abused by not allowing second motion after superseding indictment. | Court should have permitted challenging probable cause anew. | District court abused discretion but error was harmless. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for firearms in furtherance | Mohammed argues gun not linked to drug trafficking because found in car. | Evidence showed nexus between gun, drugs, and drug dealing. | Sufficient evidence for “in furtherance” nexus; reasonable jury could find linkage. |
| Confrontation Clause and informant hearsay | Hearsay from non-testifying informant violated Crawford and Confrontation Clause. | Admission of testimonial informant statements was improper; mistrial requested. | Some statements were testimonial and error was harmless given other corroborating evidence. |
| Photographs and pre-Miranda statements | Photographs were prejudicial; pre-Miranda questions improperly elicited information. | Photographs probative of ownership and drug-trafficking nexus; public-safety exception applied to some questions. | Photographs properly admitted; public-safety exception supported admissibility of pre-Miranda inquiry; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Carriger, 541 F.2d 545 (6th Cir. 1976) (illegal entry into locked common area; reasonable expectation of privacy in common areas)
- United States v. Heath, 259 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2001) (extension of Carriger; independent-source analysis)
- United States v. Jenkins, 396 F.3d 751 (6th Cir. 2005) (independent-source rule; tainted information must be excised to reassess probable cause)
- United States v. McClain, 444 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 2005) (probable cause standard; practical, common-sense assessment)
- United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2004) (nexus between place and evidence; homes used to store drugs)