United States v. Raymond Johnson, 457 F. App'x 512

Johnson pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute heroin and marijuana, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The convictions arose from a March 17, 2010 task force surveillance of a suspected drug transaction in Cleveland, Ohio.
Informant-provided details linked Hakim to the Glen Drive residence and the others to the distribution scheme; police observed multiple individuals and vehicles entering and leaving the residence during surveillance.
Police performed a warrantless protective sweep of the Glen Drive residence after breaking in due to a wedged door; no evidence was seized during the sweep, but marijuana was observed in the home and later a warrant was obtained.
A search warrant affidavit, supported by a confidential informant and corroborating observations, yielded seizures including marijuana, heroin, a handgun, scales, cash, and numerous cell phones.
Defendant moved to suppress, arguing the sweep was unlawful and the warrant lacked probable cause; the district court denied suppression and later sentenced Johnson above the Guidelines range.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the protective sweep lawful under exigent circumstances?	Government asserts exigent circumstances justified the sweep to prevent evidence destruction.	Johnson contends the initial sweep was unlawful and its observations should have been excluded.	Exigent circumstances valid; sweep constitutional.
Did remaining evidence in the affidavit support probable cause for the search warrant if sweep observations are excised?	Government contends the affidavit contained independent corroboration showing the residence as a drug distribution point.	Johnson argues without sweep observations the probable cause fails.	Sufficient remaining evidence supported probable cause.
Was Johnson's sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable given the upward departure/variance?	Government contends the district court properly departed/varied due to under-represented criminal history and drug threat, and adequately explained §3553(a) factors.	Johnson argues the departure/variance and weight given to criminal history were improper or inadequately explained.	Sentence procedurally and substantively reasonable; no reversible error.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (established privacy expectations and search doctrine basics)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (home-entry warrant requirement; exceptions noted)
Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501 (6th Cir. 1988) (exigent circumstances to prevent destruction of evidence; narcotics context)
Williams, 354 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2003) (exigent circumstances recognized in four areas, including imminent destruction of evidence)
McClain, 430 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2005) (probable cause and exigent circumstances interplay; home-entry limits)
Helton, 314 F.3d 812 (6th Cir. 2003) (probable cause standard under Gates totality of the circumstances)
Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause requires reasonable probability of incriminating evidence)
Spears v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 840 (2009) (courts may depart from guidelines on policy grounds)
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007) (policy disagreement with guidelines permissible in sentencing)
Herrera-Zuniga, 571 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2009) (discretion to reject guidelines on policy grounds extends beyond crack cocaine)
Barber, 200 F.3d 908 (6th Cir. 2000) (USSG §4A1.3 departure/variance discussed in context of upward adjustment)