United States v. Jayon Florence, 150 F.4th 773

ATF investigated Jayon Florence and conducted controlled buys of fentanyl and cocaine using an undercover officer in late 2022–early 2023.
While arranging a fourth buy, agents pinged Florence’s phone, located his car at a Melbourne Road residence, saw Florence exit the house, complete the sale in his car, then return and re-enter the house.
Two days after a magistrate issued a warrant to track his phone, agents obtained a search warrant for the Melbourne Road residence and executed it two days later.
Search recovered nine firearms, ammunition, body armor, a pill press and scales, distribution quantities of narcotics, a money counter, and $59,507 in cash; Florence admitted ownership of the seized items.
Florence moved to suppress; the district court denied the motion. He pled guilty to several counts but reserved his suppression challenge; at sentencing the court applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) enhancement for maintaining a drug premises and sentenced him to 106 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrant affidavit established probable cause to search the Melbourne Road residence	Government: Surveillance showing Florence leave the house, sell drugs, and immediately return (plus texts and phone pings) created a fair probability contraband would be at the residence	Florence: A single coming-and-returning buy and cell data do not establish a sufficient nexus to the house; case law (McPhearson) shows mere presence is insufficient	Probable cause existed; Sanders (en banc) is controlling—observing a round-trip sale supports nexus; suppression denied
Whether the § 2D1.1(b)(12) two‑level enhancement for maintaining a drug premises was properly applied (maintenance/de facto control)	Government: Florence exercised de facto control—he admitted ownership of contraband and large indicia of trafficking were found at the residence, showing access/control	Florence: He lacked possessory interest; family-owned home and familial access could explain presence; court erred in relying on volume of contraband for maintenance	Enhancement affirmed. Court applies clear‑error review to the district court’s factbound maintenance finding and concludes the decision was not clearly erroneous

United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (round‑trip surveillance of a defendant leaving a residence to sell drugs and returning can establish probable cause to search the residence)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (establishing the totality‑of‑the‑circumstances fair‑probability standard for probable cause)
United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2006) (rejecting reliance on a defendant’s arrest with drugs on his person to infer drugs in his home absent nexus evidence)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (articulating the good‑faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
Buford v. United States, 532 U.S. 59 (2001) (district courts are better positioned to make fact‑intensive sentencing determinations; deferential review appropriate)
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n ex rel. CWCapital Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Vill. at Lakeridge, LLC, 583 U.S. 387 (2018) (appellate deference when mixed questions are immersed in case‑specific factual issues)
Taglieri v. Monasky, 907 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2018) (describing clear‑error review standard for factual findings)