United States v. Jeremy Duval
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2346
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Gerald Duval grew marijuana on his Michigan farm as a MMMA patient; his two adult children were registered as patients and caregivers under MMMA.
- Law-enforcement executed two searches in June and August 2011, seizing marijuana, firearms, and MMMA-related documents.
- An indictment followed in September 2011 charging Gerald and Jeremy with conspiracy, multiple counts of manufacturing, a drug premises violation, and firearms offenses; Ashley was not charged.
- A nine-day trial in April 2012 resulted in drug-related convictions for the Duvals and acquittals on firearms counts; Gerald received 120 months’ imprisonment plus supervised release and a fine, Jeremy 60 months’ imprisonment.
- Duvals challenged (1) whether MMMA compliance was relevant to warrant applications and (2) whether the indictment was defective for failing to negate the practitioner-exception under the CSA; the district court denied suppression and the case proceeded to appeal.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding no error in the warrants or indictment challenges and addressing procedural waivers and forfeitures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMA compliance relevance to probable cause | Duval seeks suppression based on omissions about MMMA status | Glick lacked deliberate omission; collective knowledge not established | Affirmed; warrants valid despite MMMA considerations |
| Franks/omissions in warrant affidavits | Omissions about OMNI advice taint tainted probable cause | No deliberate or reckless omission; no Franks error | Affirmed; no Franks error present |
| Rule 41 and magistrate authority | Warrant issued by state magistrate violates Rule 41 | DEA detail allows state magistrate warrants for state-law violations | Affirmed; Rule 41 not controlling; state warrant permissible |
| Indictment sufficiency and practitioner-exception | Indictment insufficient for caregiver/practitioner exclusion under MMMA | Waived/forfeited; Marcinkewciz controls; no merits reached | Affirmed as to forfeiture/waiver; merits not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Woods, 544 F.2d 242 (6th Cir. 1976) (collective knowledge doctrine; agency teamwork in probable cause)
- United States v. Redmond, 475 F. App’x 603 (6th Cir. 2012) (collective knowledge doctrine limits inapplicable situations)
- United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2004) (Franks framework for omissions/false statements in affidavits)
- United States v. Scott, 260 F.3d 512 (6th Cir. 2001) (Rule 41 authority and magistrate signing significance)
- United States v. Bennett, 170 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 1999) (authority to interpret cross-jurisdictional warrants)