United States v. Kevin Price, 841 F.3d 703

Police obtained a warrant to search Kevin Price’s home based on multiple informants and a recent tip from an arrested dealer identifying Price as his heroin supplier; officers also knew Price’s vehicle descriptions and his six prior drug convictions.
Surveillance units positioned near Price’s house observed Price briefly lean into a parked Tahoe—conduct an officer reasonably believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction—and the Tahoe then drove off.
Price walked into an alley behind his house where an officer in that alley positively identified him; he then got into a truck and drove away, prompting officers to stop, gunpoint-detain, and handcuff him at a nearby intersection.
Officers searched Price’s home and found drug paraphernalia and rental records for storage units; no drugs were found in the house.
About three hours after his arrest, officers located Price’s van at a storage facility; after being told about the van, Price admitted it was his and consented to a search, which uncovered firearms and cocaine.
Price was indicted for being a felon in possession of firearms; he moved to suppress the evidence (arguing an unlawful arrest invalidated his later consent) and separately moved for return of property; the district court denied both motions and convicted/sentenced him, and Price appealed.

Issue	Price’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether officers had probable cause to arrest Price at the intersection	Arrest lacked probable cause; detention was unlawful, so later consent was invalid	Officers had reasonable suspicion from tips plus observed hand-to-hand transaction and flight, which together gave probable cause	Probable cause existed; arrest lawful; suppression denied
Whether Price’s post-arrest consent to search the van was voluntary and valid	Consent tainted by unlawful arrest and thus invalid	Valid consent given after lawful arrest and independent of search warrant process	Consent valid; evidence admissible
Whether the district court erred denying Rule 41(g) return-of-property motion	Federal court should order return of seized property	Property was seized and disposed of by state/local officers; federal government never possessed it	Denial affirmed because federal possession never occurred
Standard of review for suppression factual findings	N/A (procedural)	N/A	District court’s factual findings reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions reviewed de novo

United States v. Winters, 782 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
Radvansky v. City of Olmstead Falls, 496 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2007) (probable cause requires facts that would lead a prudent person to believe a crime occurred)
Weaver v. Shadoan, 340 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2003) (flight after police suspicion can supply probable cause)
United States v. Stepp, 680 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2012) (defendant’s narcotics convictions can inform officers’ reasonable suspicion)
Savoy v. United States, 604 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 41(g) motions)
Okoro v. Callaghan, 324 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2003) (Rule 41(g) requires that the federal government have possessed the property)