* The Honorable John D. Holschuh, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 06a0435p.06


### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA
, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

M ARTEDIS M C P HEARSON
, Defendant-Appellee. X - - - -

> , - - N No. 05-5534

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Jackson. No. 04-10038—James D. Todd, Chief District Judge.

Argued: July 26, 2006

Decided and Filed: November 27, 2006

Before: GIBBONS and ROGERS, Circu it Judges; HOLSCHUH, District Judge. *

_________________ COUNSEL

ARGUED: R. Leigh Grinalds, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellant. Angela L. Pitts, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: R. Leigh Grinalds, ASSISTANT UNI TED STATES ATTORNEY, Jacks on, Tennessee, for Appellant. J. Patten Brown III, OFFICE OF THE FE DERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.

GIBBONS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HOLSCHUH, D. J., joined. ROGERS, J. (p. 9), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

_________________ OPINION

_________________ JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. A gra nd jury returned an indictment charging Martedis McPhearson (“McPhearson”) with possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and posse ssion of a firearm during and in relation to a drugtrafficking crime. McPhearson filed a motion to s uppress evidence seized from his residence. The United States District Court for the Western Di strict of Tennessee granted McPhearson’s motion.

1No. 05-5534 United States v. McPhearson Page 2

1 The chronology of events transpiring after McPhearson denied Mathis and Wiser permission to search the Shelby Street residence is disputed. Witnesses for the government testified that the Jackson police secured the Shelby Street residence and obtained a search warrant, while witn esses for McPhearson testified that Jackson police officers began searching the Shelby Street residence before securi ng a search warrant. Despite the conflicting testimony, the district court made no credibility determinations, and the contradictory accounts of the events at the Shelby Street residence have no impact on our resolution of the case. Acco rdingly, we will relay only the police officers’ version of events for simplicity. The government appeals the order granting the motion to suppress. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s order.

I.

Charles Mathis (“Mathis”) and Christopher Wise r (“Wiser”), investigators for the Jackson, Tennessee, police department, traveled on or about December 12, 2003, to a residence inhabited by McPhearson at 228 Shelby Street in Jackson. Math is and Wiser went to arrest McPhearson on a warrant for simple assault after receiving information from Patrol Officer Maurice Willis that McPhearson was at home.

Mathis knocked on the front door, while Wiser secured the rear exit of the house. McPhearson answered the door and identified himself to Mathis. Mathis then arrested McPhearson on the front porch of the Shelby Street residen ce. After walking McPhearson to the police car, Wiser searched him incident to the arrest. Th e pat-down located crack cocaine in McPhearson’s right front pocket. Mathis and Wiser asked McPhearson for permission to search his house, and McPhearson refused consent. 1

Wiser and Mathis decided to obtain a search warrant. Mathis contacted their supervisor, Lieutenant Patrick Willis, and provided him withinformation for the search warrant. After Lieutenant Willis drafted the search warrant, he and Mathis went to Judge Christy Little’s house. Little is a juvenile court judge for Madison County, Tennessee. Judge Little examined the warrant drafted by Lieutenant Willis and the affidavit sworn by Mathis. The affidavit stated, in pertinent part:

Investigator Mathis, who makes oath that he has probable cause for believing and does believe that Martedis M. McPhearson . . . is in possession of the following described property, to wit: Illegal controlle d substances, particularly crack cocaine, records, ledgers, tapes, electronic media and other items which memorialize drug trafficking or proceeds therefrom contrary to the laws of the State of Tennessee . . . . [H]is reason for such belief and the probable cause for such belief are that the Affiant has: Investigator Mathis and Wiser, recei ved information from Officer A. Willis that Martedis McPhearson was wanted for simple assault. Officer Willis located McPhearson’s vehicle at 228 Shelby Street. Inv. Mathis and Wiser went to 228 Shelby Street and knocked on the door. A black male answered the door and identified himself to be Martedis McPhear son. Investigators informed McPhearson that they were taking him in custody on the simple assault warrant. McPhearson was searched prior to being placed in the poli ce car for transport to booking. Investigator Wiser discovered in McPhearson’s right fr ont pocket a clear plastic bag containing a white chalky substance that is cons istent with, and appeared to be crack cocaine,. [sic] The substance was field test ed by Inv. Mathis. The field test showed positive for the presence of cocaine. The substance weighed 6.4 grams. E-911 records revealed that 228 Shelby is the residence of Martedis McPhearson.No. 05-5534 United States v. McPhearson Page 3

2 Their sweep located Elton Nance hiding in a bathroom. Nance was later charged as a co-defendant in this case. Being satisfied that there was probable cause, J udge Little signed a search warrant for 228 Shelby Street.

While Lieutenant Willis and Mathis were obt aining the search warrant, Wiser waited at 228 Shelby Street and called the police station for add itional officers. Wiser knocked on the door of the house and advised two women who were inside thatthey could not leave because the police were obtaining a search warrant. He remained in th e house with the women until Jackson police officer Tony Cepparulo (“Cepparulo”) arri ved. Cepparulo and Wiser then swept through the house “to clear the residence and make sure there was nobody in th ere with any kind of weapons that could do any kind of harm to [them] or the other females that [sic] were in the house.” 2

After Wiser and Lieutenant Willis returned with the search warrant, the Jackson police conducted a full scale search of 228 Shelby Street . They uncovered distribution quantities of crack cocaine and firearms.

II.

McPhearson moved the district court to suppre ss the evidence seized in the protective sweep and search of his residence. After a suppressi on hearing, the district court granted the motion, focusing on the affidavit sworn by Mathis and its deficiencies. From the bench, the court said:

There are cases that have heldthat when the defendant is arrested at his residence with a large quantity of drugs, then that is an indication that there may have been drug paraphernalia in the house.

There are cases that hold that a person who is arrested at his home and gives deceptive answers to the policemen at the time of the arrest about where he had gotten the drugs or where he had been -- deceptive answers along with an arrest with drugs in his pocket might be enough for probable cause.

The problem in this case though is that there’s none of that in the affidavit. All the affidavit says, and I’ve read it carefully several times, basically, is that Mr. McPhearson was arrested on a simple assau lt warrant. He was taken into custody on that warrant. He was sear ched prior to being placed in the police car, and they discovered in his right front pocket a cl ear plastic bag containing crack cocaine, which weighed 6.4 grams. And this residence was the residence of McPhearson. And that’s all. So I don’t have these other issues that the other courts have held to be sufficient.

We still look at the Illinois v. Gates totality of the circumstances, and I don’t think I can conclude that there was any ev idence presented to Judge Little that there were drugs in the house. So it’s my judgment that the Illinois -- I’m sorry, that the search warrant was issued without probable cause.

Now, the next question becomes, how about the protective sweep, and is the evidence gathered during the protective sweep admissible. And it seems to me that they went to the house to get Mr. McPhearson. They got Mr. McPhearson. They had no indication that anything was going on in the house. A protective sweep was unnecessary. So the evidence seized during the investigative sweep is also suppressed.No. 05-5534 United States v. McPhearson Page 4

Then I get to the Leon good-faith exception, and then I have to decide did the officers who served the search warrant havea good-faith belief in the validity of the
warrant . . . .

. . . .

The more difficult issue in the Leon good-faith exception is where the supporting affidavit was nothing more than a bare-bones affidavit, so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render o fficial belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. My reading of this affidavit indicates that it is a bare-bones affidavit. It doesn’t offer any indication that drugs or drug paraphernalia were inside the house or that the officer had any reason to believe that they were inside the house.

Perhaps if the affidavit had said that ba sed on this officer’s experience in drug law enforcement, drug dealers often keep drug paraphernalia in their home, and one with 6.9 grams of crack cocaine likely had it fo r resale, and I, therefore, think there’s something in the house -- but none of that’s here. It’s a bare-bones affidavit; therefore, it’s my judgment that the Leon good-faith exception does not apply. The defendant’s motion to suppress is, therefore, granted.

The district court adhered to its ruling when the government filed a motion to reconsider.

The government appealed the district court’s gr ant of the motion to suppress with respect to the evidence seized in the search but not with resp ect to the evidence seized in the protective sweep.

III.

The propriety of the protective sweep was consid ered by the district court but not raised by the government on appeal. Issues that were raised in the district court, but not on appeal, are considered abandoned and are not reviewable on appeal. See United States v. McClellan , No. 00- 5606, 2002 WL 104810, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 24, 2002) (citing Enertech Elec., Inc. v. Mahoning County Comm'rs , 85 F.3d 257, 259 (6th Cir.1996)) (applying waiver doctrine in a criminal case); see also Turner v. City of Taylor , 412 F.3d 629, 639 (6th Cir. 2005) ( holding that failure to appeal the summary judgment with respect to one claim cons tituted waiver). Therefore, the district court’s invalidation of the protective sweep must stand. The only issues the government properly raised before this court are whether the search warrant validly issued on a showing of probable cause and, if not, whether the search could be saved by application of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.

IV.

The Fourth Amendment provides that “no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Whether the police had probable cause to search determines whether a search conducted pursuant to a warrant comports with the Fourth Amendment. Warden v. Hayden , 387 U.S. 294, 301-02 (1967); Thacker v. City of Columbus , 328 F.3d 244, 252 (6th Cir. 2003). “Though evidence obtaine d in violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally excluded, the Supreme Court has held that the exclusionary rule ‘should be modified so as not to bar the admission of evidence sei zed in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently held to be defective.’” United States v. Frazier , 423 F.3d 526, 533 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 905 (1984)). The district court found that probable cause was so lacking that neither was the search warrant valid nor was the officers’ belief in its validity reasonable. Therefore, the district court found that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and suppressed the evidence seized.No. 05-5534 United States v. McPhearson Page 5

A.

“When reviewing decisions on motions to s uppress, this court will uphold the factual findings of the district court unless clearly erroneous, while legal conclusions are reviewed de novo .” United States v. Weaver , 99 F.3d 1372, 1376 (6th Cir. 1996). This court views the evidence “in the light most likely to support th e district court’s decision.” United States v. Williams , 962 F.2d 1218, 1221 (6th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation omitted).

B.

A search warrant comports w ith the Fourth Amendment if it was issued by a “magistrate [who] had a ‘substantial basis for . . . concl ud[ing]’ that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing . . . .” Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983) (quoting Jones v. United States , 362 U.S. 257, 271 (1960)) (second and third alteration in original). Such a conclusion depends on the totality of the circumstances, id. at 230-31, and should not be set aside unless arbitrarily drawn because “[t]his court pays great deference to the determinations of probable cause made by a state magistrate.” Weaver , 99 F.3d at 1376. However, the court must “insist that the magistrate perform his ‘neutral and detached’ function and not serv e merely as a rubber stamp for the police.” Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108, 111 (1964), overruled on other grounds

, Gates , 462 U.S. at 238.

“For the magistrate to be able to properly perform this official function, the affidavit presented [in support of the search warrant] mu st contain adequate supporting facts about the underlying circumstances to show that probable cau se exists for the issuance of the warrant.” Weaver , 99 F.3d at 1376. The affidavit must contain particularized facts demonstrating “a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be lo cated on the premises of the proposed search.” Frazier , 423 F.3d at 531. This requires “a nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought.” United States v. Carpenter , 360 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (internal quotation omitted). In other words, the affidavit must sugge st “that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific ‘things’ to be searched for and sei zed are located on the property to which entry is sought” and not merely “that the owner of property is suspected of crime.” Zurcher v. Stanford Daily , 436 U.S. 547, 556 (1978).

The affidavit in this case did no more than state that McPhearson, who resided at 228 Shelby Street, was arrested for a non-drug offense with a quantity of crack cocaine on his person. These averments were insufficient to establish probable cause because they do not establish the requisite nexus between the place to be s earched and the evidence to be sought. “‘[A] suspect’s mere presence or arrest at a residence is too insignifican t a connection with that residence to establish that relationship’ necessary to a finding of probable cause.” United States v. Savoca , 761 F.2d 292, 297 (6th Cir. 1985) (quoting United States v. Flores , 679 F.2d 173, 175 (9th Cir. 1982)).

The government argues that McPhearson’s arrest outside his home with drugs on his person was sufficient to establish a fair probability that his residence would contain evidence of wrongdoing. The argument depends on an inference that “an individual arrested outside his residence with drugs in his pocket is likely to have stored drugs and related paraphernalia in that same residence.” (Gov’t’s Br. 11.) This infere nce can be drawn permissibly in some cases, as evidenced by United States v. Miggins and the cases cited therein. 302 F.3d 384, 393-94 (6th Cir. 2002). But in all those cases, the affidavits contai ned an additional fact that permitted the magistrate to draw the inference that evidence of wrongdoing would be found in the defendants’ homes—namely, the independently corroborated fact that the defendants were known drug dealersNo. 05-5534 United States v. McPhearson Page 6

3 In some instances, even the fact that the residences to be searched were occupied by known drug dealers is insufficient to establish the nexus between the residences and criminal activity. In United States v. Frazier , we wrote that our case law does not “support[] the proposition that the de fendant’s status as a drug dealer, standing alone, gives rise to a fair probability that drugs will be found in his home. Where . . . the warrant affidavit is based almost exclusively on the uncorroborated testimony of unproven confidential informants . . . , the allegation that the defendant is a drug dealer, without more, is insufficient to tie the alle ged criminal activity to the defendant’s residence.” Frazier , 423 F.3d at 533. Thus, an allegation of drug dealing based on inform ation from an untested confidential informant is insufficient to establish probable cause to search the alleged drug deale r’s home. However, where the allegation of drug dealing is coupled with independently corroborated information from po lice officers, it may be sufficient to establish probable

cause. See, e.g.

, United States v. Miggins , 302 F.3d 384, 393-94 (6th Cir. 2002). Whether probable cause can be established by an allegation of drug deali ng is irrelevant to our resolution of th is case, however. The allegation of drug dealing was absent from the affidavit supporting the warrant inthis case, which presents a probable cause determination based on an even looser connection between the residence and the suspected criminal activity. at the time the police sought to search their homes. 3 See, e.g.

, United States v. Feliz , 182 F.3d 82, 87-88 (1st Cir. 1999) (finding it r easonable to infer that a known drug dealer would store evidence of his trade at home); United States v. McClellan , 165 F.3d 535, 546 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[I]n issuing a search warrant, a magistrate is entitled to draw reasonable inferences about where the evidence is likely to be kept . . . and . . . in the case of drug dealers evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live.”). That fact was absent from the affidavit in this case. McPhearson was not a known drug dealer: his prior convictions were for property crimes, and the warrant on which the police arrested him was for simple assault. In the absence of any facts connecting McPhearson to drug trafficking, the affidavit in this case cannot support the inference that evidence of wrongdoing would be found in McPhearson’s home because drugs were found on his person.

Without this inference and any supporting f acts suggesting that McPhearson’s home would contain evidence of crime, Judge Little lacked a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed for issuing the warrant.

C.

The exclusionary rule does “not bar the government’s introduction of evidence obtained by police officers acting in objectively reasonable reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently invalidated.” United States v. Laughton , 409 F.3d 744, 748 (6th Cir. 2005) . The “good faith inquiry is confined to the objectively ascertainable ques tion whether a reasonably we ll trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s authorization. In making this determination, all of the circumstances . . . may be considered.” Leon , 468 U.S. at 922-23, n.23.

The good-faith exception, however, does not apply infour situations: (1) when the affidavit supporting the search warrant contains a knowing or reckless falsity; (2) when the magistrate who issued the search warrant wholly abandoned his or her judicial role; (3) when the affidavit is so lacking in indicia of probable cause that a belie f in its existence is objectively unreasonable; or (4) when the warrant is so facially deficient that it cannot reasonably be presumed valid. Laughton

, 409 F.3d at 748 (citing Leon , 468 U.S. at 914-23).

The third limitation on the good-faith exception, which the district court applied in this case, prevents introduction of evidence seized under a warrant that issued on the basis of a “bare bones” affidavit. Id. at 748. A bare bones affidavit is one that merely “states suspicions, beliefs, or conclusions, without providing some underlying factual circumstances regarding veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge.” Weaver , 99 F.3d at 1378.

Determining whether the affidavit is so bare bones as to preclude application of the goodfaith exception is a less demanding inquiry thanthe one involved in determining whether the affidavit provided a “substantial basis” for the magistrate’s conclusion of probable cause. Laughton

,No. 05-5534 United States v. McPhearson Page 7

409 F.3d at 748-49 (quoting Carpenter , 360 F.3d at 595). If the inquiries were identical, the probable cause determination would subsume the good-faith exception. Id. at 749. The good-faith inquiry requires examination of the affidavit for particularized facts that indicate veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge and go beyond bare conclusions and suppositions. Id. at 748-49.

The affidavit in this case was so bare bones as to preclude any reasonable belief in the search warrant that the affidavit supported. As noted above, the affidavit failed to establish a nexus between McPhearson’s residence and evidence of wrongdoing that would support a finding of probable cause. However, the failure to establish probable cause is not dispositive of whether the affidavit could support a reasonable belief in the validity of the search warrant for purposes of the exclusionary rule. “We previously found Leon applicable in cases where we determined that the affidavit contained a minimally sufficient nexus between the illegal activity and the place to be searched to support an officer’s good faith belief in the warrant’s validity, even if the information provided was not enough to establish probable cause.” Carpenter , 360 F.3d at 596. The minimal nexus required to support an officer’s good faith belief was not present in this case.

The only connection in the affidavit between 228 Shelby Street and drug trafficking was that Jackson police arrested McPhearson at his residence and found crack cocaine in his pocket in a search incident to the arrest. This connection cannot establish the minimal nexus that has justified application of the good-faith exception in cases wh ere the nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence to be sought was too weak to establish probable cause. See Frazier , 423 F.3d at 536-37; Carpenter , 360 F.3d at 595-96; United States v. Van Shutters , 163 F.3d 331, 337-38 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Schultz , 14 F.3d 1093, 1098 (6th Cir. 1994); Savoca , 761 F.2d at 298-99. The application of the good-faith exception in Frazier

, Savoca

, andVan Shutters depended on the fact that each of the defendants we re known to have participated prev iously in the type of criminal activity that the police were investigating. In Frazier , the defendant was a known drug dealer and drugs had been found at his prior residence. 423 F.3d at 537. In Savoca , the defendants had been identified as the perpetrators of a string of bank robberies in two states. 761 F.2d at 295-98. Similarly, in Van Shutters , the defendant had confessed to perp etrating an auto-theft scheme. 163 F.3d at 336-37. Finally, in Shultz , the court found that the mini mal nexus was satisfied by the officer’s reliance on his years of experience as a narcotics investigator and the knowledge he had acquired of drug dealers’ business practices. 14 F.3d at 1098. Each of these additional facts, although not sufficient to establish probable cause, created the minimal nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence sought that woul d permit application of the good-faith exception. In this case, there are no analogous f acts that establish the minimal nexus. The affidavit merely stated that: (1) “Inv. Mathis and Wiser went to 228 Shelby Street and knocked on the door. A black male answered the door and identified himself to be Martedis McPhearson”; (2) “McPhearson was searched prior to being placed in the police car for transport to booking. Investigator Wiser discovered in McPhearson’s right front pocket a clear plastic bag containing . . . [crack cocaine]”; and (3) “E-911 records revealed that 228 Shelby is the residence of Martedis McPhearson.” The affidavit did not allege that McPhearson was i nvolved in drug dealing, that hallmarks of drug dealing had been witnessed at his home, such as heavy traffic to and from the residence, or that the investigating officers’ experience in narcotics investigation suggested to them that 6.9 grams of crack cocaine was a quantity for resale. Nor did th e affidavit allege anything else tying McPhearson or his home to any criminal activity other than personal possession of crack cocaine (and the simple assault for which he was arrested). Instead, th e “evidence in the affidavit connecting the crime to the residence [wa]s ‘so vague as to be conclusory or meaningless.’” Frazier , 423 F.3d at 537 (quoting Carpenter , 360 F.3d at 596). Therefore, we conclude that the district court properly refused to apply the good-faith exception to validate the s earch because the affida vit was “so lacking in indicia of probable cause that a belief in its existence is objectively unreasonable.” Laughton , 409 F.3d at 748.No. 05-5534 United States v. McPhearson Page 8

V.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s grant of McPhearson’s motion to
suppress.No. 05-5534 United States v. McPhearson Page 9

_______________
DISSENT

_______________ ROGERS, Circuit Judge, dissenting. When offici als read an affidavit describing how a man emerged from his single-family residence with ove r six grams of crack cocaine and how agents on the scene believed that there were more drugs in side the dwelling, the officials could reasonably believe that the search-warrant affidavit adequate ly described probable cause to justify a search of the dwelling. See United States v. Carpenter , 360 F.3d 591, 594-97 (6th Cir. 2004). If there was, in hindsight, no probable cause for the search, the officials executing a warrant based on that affidavit are still entitled to the good-faith exception in United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 (1984). For this reason, the district court should not have suppressed the evidence that authorities obtained in executing the warrant based on the affidavit.

In this case, police arrested McPhearson at his residence and found a white chalky substance, which turned out to be crack cocaine, in hi s pocket. Having found illegal drugs on McPhearson, officers believed that they could find additional drugs in McPhearson’s home. Indeed, it is a reasonable inference that at least some people w ho carry crack cocaine around with them in their homes would leave some of the contraband, which they could divide into smaller amounts, elsewhere in their homes. See United States v. Laughton , 409 F.3d 744, 749-50 (6th Cir. 2005) (acknowledging that officials may make at least a single inference to fill a gap in an affidavit). Acting on this suspicion, authorities obtained a searchwarrant based on an affidavit that described how officers discovered crack cocaine on McPhearson’s body and believed that additional drugs were in the home.

Decisions from this Circuit suggest that the affidavit in this case was sufficient to establish probable cause. In United States v. Frazier , for example, this court found a “strong” connection between the place to be searched and the evidence to be sought when affidavits described how authorities found drugs in defendant’s former reside nce and that defendant, a suspected drug dealer, likely kept contraband where he resided. 423 F.3d 526, 537 (6th Cir. 2005). In this case, authorities found drugs on McPhearson as he emerged from his single-family residence, a place that he might have kept additional drugs. In United States v. Carpenter , meanwhile, this Court, sitting en banc

, noted that if the “affidavit had stated that beaten paths led from the marijuana patches to the door of [defendants’] residence, and that two men had been spotted walking from the marijuana patches to the residence, the affidavit would likely have been sufficient to establish probable cause.” 360 F.3d at 594 (citations omitted). In this case, o fficers discovered McPhearson with drugs on his body, in contrast with drugs a distance away, and observed McPhearson emerge from his home, in contrast with finding him walking towards his residence.

Whether the affidavit adequately described probable cause in this case is a close call; however, whether officials could claim good-faith reliance on the affidavit is a straightforward issue. Because the affidavit described facts sufficient to bring this case within the realm of Frazier and Carpenter , the officers are entitled to the Leon good-faith exception. To be sure, the officers certainly could have done more to elaborate on w hy they believed that there was probable cause to search McPhearson’s house. For example, they could have described in detail how, in their professional opinions based on experiences in narcotics investigations, individuals who carry on them over six grams of crack cocaine while in th eir homes frequently have additional quantities of drugs in that residence. However, only a police officer with extraordinary legal training would have detected any potential deficiencies in the affidav it because it failed to articulate this inference. See United States v. Van Shutters , 163 F.3d 331, 337 (6th Cir. 1998).

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.