United States v. Michael White, Jr., 990 F.3d 488

Background

Undercover Detective T. Schmidt arranged two controlled purchases of cocaine from suspected dealer Jared Conkle; on both occasions officers observed Conkle enter Michael White’s residence and then reemerge before delivering drugs to the undercover officer.
Approximately 48 hours after the second buy, Schmidt applied for a search warrant for White’s home, including a no-knock provision, citing his 17 years of experience and that dealers often store drugs at acquaintances’ residences.
A state judge issued the warrant; the search recovered over 50 grams of cocaine/crack, an AR-style rifle, a stolen handgun, and cash.
White moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause to link contraband to his residence; the district court granted suppression.
The government appealed. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding the affidavit gave the magistrate a substantial basis to find probable cause based on the two observed controlled buys.
The court declined to resolve whether the no-knock provision was justified but held that suppression is not the appropriate remedy for an unjustified knock-and-announce violation (Hudson v. Michigan), leaving civil remedies intact.

Issues

Issue	White's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Probable cause to search White’s home	Affidavit failed to show nexus between alleged sales and interior of White’s house	Two observed controlled buys where Conkle entered and exited White’s house before completing sales create a fair probability of contraband inside	Reversed: magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause based on the two buys
Alternative explanations (e.g., Conkle already had drugs or house depleted)	Such possibilities undermine the inference that drugs were stored in White’s home	Probable cause requires a fair probability, not elimination of all alternative explanations; common-sense inference suffices	Rejected White’s doubt-based challenge: possibility does not defeat probable cause
No-knock entry and remedy for knock-and-announce violation	No-knock unjustified; evidence should be suppressed if rule violated	Affidavit asserted safety and destruction concerns; even if knock-and-announce violated, exclusion is not required	Court left the no-knock justification unresolved but held suppression is not the remedy; civil §1983 damages are the proper remedy per Hudson

Key Cases Cited

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes "fair probability" standard for probable cause)
Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (probable cause does not require eliminating all doubt)
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (exclusionary rule not the remedy for knock-and-announce violations)
Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (knock-and-announce principle and its exceptions)
United States v. Ellison, 632 F.3d 347 (6th Cir. 2011) (observed entry/exit during drug transaction establishes nexus)
United States v. Pinson, 321 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2003) (single controlled buy entering/exiting a residence can establish probable cause)
United States v. Artez, 389 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2004) (two observed buys entering/exiting residence sufficient)
United States v. Khounsavanh, 113 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 1997) (controlled buy where informant entered building and emerged with drugs supported search)
United States v. Garcia, 983 F.2d 1160 (1st Cir. 1993) (observed entry/exit linked building to drug sale)
United States v. Dukes, 758 F.3d 932 (8th Cir. 2014) (repeated returns from residence with drugs supported probable cause)
United States v. Coleman, 923 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2019) (traveling from home directly to drug sale can support nexus)
United States v. Barnes, 492 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2007) (leaving home immediately before selling drugs supports inference of storage at home)
United States v. Bulgatz, 693 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1982) (starting from residence before delivery supports nexus)
United States v. Stearn, 597 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2010) (sleeping at home after collecting drug proceeds supports link to residence)