United States v. Robert Archibald, Jr., 685 F.3d 553

May 20, 2008, an informant cooperated in a controlled buy of crack cocaine from Apartment 5A at 5A University Court, Nashville, under police surveillance and audio monitoring.
On May 23, 2008, a state judge issued a search warrant for Apartment 5A based on the informant’s controlled purchase and corroborating officer observations, with limited informant details disclosed to the judge.
Defendants Archibald and Jenkins were present when officers executed the warrant on May 28, 2008; cocaine, cash, a pistol, and other evidence were found, and an additional $12,000 cash was discovered in Archibald’s car.
The state later suppressed the evidence, leading to dismissal of state charges; federally, Archibald, Jenkins, and Muse were indicted on multiple offenses in 2010.
The district court suppressed the federal evidence, ruling probable cause had gone stale and the affidavit contained false statements about the informant; the government appeals.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held the warrant valid at issuance, addressed staleness as to execution separately, and reversed the suppression order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there probable cause to search Apartment 5A?	Archibald/State argued informant reliability insufficient.	Archibald argued informant was unreliable and details sparse.	Probable cause found; one controlled purchase with corroboration supported belief drugs would be found.
Did the information in the affidavit go stale before execution?	Probable cause remained valid at execution despite time lapse.	Probable cause dissipated by the time of execution eight days later.	Staleness evaluated for issuance vs. execution; evidence did not go stale; warrant valid at issuance and execution within rule period.
Was the district court’s Franks analysis appropriate?	Franks inquiry required when alleging falsities in the affidavit.	District court erred in not applying proper Franks framework.	Franks analysis not required because warrant was valid; district court’s sua sponte Franks ruling was improper.
Was the five-day delay in execution reasonable under Tennessee Rule 41(e)(3)?	Delay violated timing rule and undermined probable cause.	Delay was reasonable due to Memorial Day weekend and officer scheduling conflicts, with no intervening changes affecting probable cause.	Delay reasonable; no intervening changes affecting probable cause; execution within Tennessee five-day window complied with the Constitution.

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court 1983) (probable cause assessed by totality of the circumstances)
United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2010) (defer to issuing judge's probable cause determination)
United States v. Coffee, 434 F.3d 887 (6th Cir. 2006) (informant credibility may be supplied by corroborating facts)
United States v. Woosley, 361 F.3d 924 (6th Cir. 2004) (informant reliability and corroboration affect probable cause)
United States v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372 (6th Cir. 1996) (probable cause standard and district court deference)
United States v. Pinson, 321 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2003) (single controlled purchase can establish probable cause)
United States v. Abboud, 438 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2006) (stale information and considered timing for warrants)
United States v. Lemmons, 527 F.2d 662 (6th Cir. 1975) (delay considerations for warrant execution timing)
United States v. Bowling, 900 F.2d 926 (6th Cir. 1990) (probable cause must exist at issuance and at execution; delay considerations)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Supreme Court 1978) (franks hearing required for substantial falsity showing)
Mastromatteo v. unfolds, 538 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2008) (Franks framework and when it applies)