United States v. Michael Redmond
475 F. App'x 603
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- Michael and Casey Redmond were indicted for conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine; Michael moved to suppress evidence from a vehicle search after a prior suppression hearing.
- A December 2007 police visit to the Redmonds’ home yielded admissions from Casey and Ami Beckman tying Michael to meth production and a chemical odor was observed.
- In July 2008 a Lowe’s tip led officers to locate a vehicle registered to Michael; the driver matched a description including iodine-coated fingers.
- Police executed a warrantless vehicle search outside the Redmond residence, discovering various lab-related chemicals and equipment, including starting fluid, drain cleaner, and other meth-related items.
- A search warrant for the residence was later obtained, yielding methamphetamine, pseudoephedrine, lithium batteries, iodine, tinctured alcohol, and salt.
- Casey pleaded guilty to possession of a listed chemical with knowledge it would be used for meth production and simple possession of methamphetamine; Michael pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for vehicle search under automobile exception | Redmonds' collective knowledge established probable cause. | Some facts were stale or from an unreliable informant; not enough for cause. | Probable cause supported the vehicle search; information refreshed by day-of evidence. |
| Reliability of December 2007 interviews | Beckman and Casey provided corroborated information linking to Michael. | Reliability questioned like Perkins; informants were not independent. | Interviews considered with corroboration; not dispositive, but supported probable cause. |
| Continuance right at sentencing | Casey waived continuance by not requesting it; no error in denying. | District court misled defense; continuance necessary to review letter. | Casey waived objection; no error in denying continuance. |
| Acceptance of responsibility adjustment | Letter indicating further drug involvement warranted denial of two-level acceptance. | Letter shows remorse and should still qualify for acceptance. | District court did not clearly err in denying the adjustment; conduct linked to underlying offense. |
| Substantive reasonableness of Casey's sentence | Sentence within Guidelines; reflects 3553(a) factors properly. | Sentence allegedly too harsh or not properly balanced. | Sentence within Guidelines; presumptively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Thornburg, 136 F.3d 1070 (6th Cir. 1998) (probable cause standard for automobile exception)
- United States v. Purcell, 526 F.3d 953 (6th Cir. 2008) (standards for reviewing suppression rulings)
- United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2006) (probable cause and totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Perkins, 994 F.2d 1184 (6th Cir. 1993) (reliability and corroboration considerations for informants)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (reliability standard for informants in probable cause)
- United States v. Thomas, 605 F.3d 300 (6th Cir. 2010) (refreshment of stale information and corroboration)
- United States v. Morrison, 983 F.2d 730 (6th Cir. 1993) (relation of conduct to underlying offense for acceptance principles)
- United States v. Hammon, 351 F.3d 765 (6th Cir. 2003) (timing of information and probable cause considerations)