UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 14-cr-20420 

 v. DISTRICT JUDGE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS 

AHMAD RASHID LEWIS, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 Defendant Ahmad Rashid Lewis is charged in a four-count indictment with (1) Felon in 

Possession of a Firearm(s) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); (2) Possession of Unregistered 

Firearm in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d); (3) Possession with Intent to Distribute Controlled 

Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and (4) Possession of Firearm(s) in Furtherance 

of Drug Trafficking Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). (Docket no. 8.) Before the Court 

is Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and Defendant’s Statements and Brief in Support of 

his Motion. (Docket nos. 30 and 33.) The Government filed a Response in Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion. (Docket no. 34.) The motion has been referred to the undersigned for 

consideration. (Docket no. 31.) The Court held a telephonic status conference with counsel for 

each party on June 23, 2016, during which it determined that an evidentiary hearing on this 

matter is unnecessary. The Court now issues this Report and Recommendation in accordance 

with Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 

2:14-cr-20420-VAR-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 1 of 11 Pg ID 115
2 

I. RECOMMENDATION 

 For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress 

Evidence and Defendant’s Statements (docket no. 30) be DENIED. 

II. REPORT 

A. Factual Background

 On June 26, 2014, DEA Task Force Officer Dennis Janowicz submitted a search warrant 

affidavit to Wayne County Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Ron Haywood in support of an 

application for a warrant to search a residence on Morrell Street in Detroit, Michigan. (Docket 

no. 34 at 7.) A copy of Officer Janowicz’s affidavit, the sufficiency of which Defendant 

challenges in his Motion, is attached to Defendant’s Motion as Exhibit A. (Docket no. 30-1.) 

 To establish probable cause for the search warrant, the Affidavit first describes Officer 

Janowicz’s work assignment, duties, education, and experience; it then sets forth facts regarding 

the premises to be searched. The Affidavit provides: 

On or about June 25th, 2014, Affiant received information that a black male 

known as Mann with a possible last name of Lewis described as being 

approximately 30 years of age, 6’0, and heavy set is known to distribute street 

level quantities of pharmaceuticals and heroin from within [the Morrell Street 

residence]. 

(Docket no. 30-1 at 3.) 

 Next, the Affidavit describes a “controlled purchase” that Officer Janowicz conducted at 

the Morrell Street residence through the use of a confidential source (CS) within 48 hours of 

receiving the aforementioned information. (Docket no. 30-1 at 3-4.) The controlled purchase 

rendered two Schedule IV pharmaceutical pills. (Id. at 4.) According to the Affidavit, the CS 

also pointed out a red Chevrolet Impala with a license plate number of “CLB0395” and indicated 

that it belonged to “Mann.” The Affidavit further explains that a subsequent check of the Law 

2:14-cr-20420-VAR-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 2 of 11 Pg ID 116
3 

Enforcement Information Network revealed that the vehicle identified by the CS was owned by 

Defendant. The Affidavit also describes facts related to the credibility of the CS. 

 In reliance on the Affidavit, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Haywood and 31st District 

Court Magistrate Alexis Krot signed the warrant at issue on June 26, 2014, thereby authorizing a 

search of the Morrell Street residence. (Docket no. 30-1; docket no. 34 at 9.) On June 27, 2014, 

DEA agents and other law enforcement officers executed the search warrant and found, among 

other things, Defendant, who was located in the living room of the residence; multiple firearms; 

and various drugs, including heroin and pills. (Docket no. 30 ¶ 4; docket no. 34 at 6.) At some 

point, either during or after the execution of the search warrant, Defendant was arrested and 

transported to the DEA Detroit Office, where Defendant admits that he made an inculpatory 

statement. (Docket no. 33 at 5; docket no. 34 at 6.) 

 B. Analysis 

 Defendant argues that the court should grant his Motion to Suppress because the 

Affidavit in support of the search warrant is deficient in that it does not establish probable cause 

to believe that controlled substances, weapons, or any other evidence of trafficking in controlled 

substances would be present at the Morrell Street residence. (Docket no. 30 ¶ 3.) Specifically, 

Defendant argues that the Affidavit is deficient because (1) the Affidavit does not identify the 

source of the information received on June 25, 2014, there is no corroboration for the Affiant’s 

statement regarding that information in the Affidavit, and the Affidavit does not specify any 

dates and times of when the drugs were allegedly being distributed; (2) there is no support in the 

Affidavit for the conclusion that the two pills rendered by the controlled purchase were Schedule 

IV pharmaceuticals; (3) the Affidavit does not indicate that a sale actually took place; (4) the 

Affidavit does not refer to any future drug sales or indicate that the CS observed evidence of 

2:14-cr-20420-VAR-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 3 of 11 Pg ID 117
4 

other drugs on the premises; (5) the Affidavit does not describe any traffic to and from the 

Morrell Street residence or mention any other controlled purchases or surveillance; and (6) the 

Affidavit does not contain “the usual” boilerplate language that drug dealers usually keep 

controlled substances or weapons at their residence or place of distribution. (Docket no. 33 at 2-

4.) Defendant further argues that “[t]he [A]ffidavit is so full of holes and unsupported statements 

and conclusions that it strains credulity to think that either a magistrate or a police officer would 

believe that it supports the issuance of a search warrant.” (Id. at 4-5.) For these reasons, 

Defendant argues that the evidence recovered at the Morrell Street residence, as well as his 

subsequent inculpatory statement should be suppressed. (Id. at 5.) 

 The Government argues that the Affidavit provided the district court magistrate “with a 

substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause” in accordance with Illinois v. 

Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 239 (1983). (Docket no. 34 at 2, 9-14, 16.) Alternatively, the government 

argues that even if the Affidavit failed to establish probable cause, the evidence and Defendant’s 

statements should not be suppressed because the officers relied on the search warrant in good 

faith. (Id. at 3, 14-16.) 

 Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, “no Warrants 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. In deciding 

whether an affidavit establishes probable cause justifying the issuance of a search warrant, “[t]he 

task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, 

given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and 

‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that 

contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 238-39 

2:14-cr-20420-VAR-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 4 of 11 Pg ID 118
5 

(citation omitted). “Whether the affidavit gives rise to this fair probability depends on the 

totality of the circumstances.” United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir. 2010) 

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

 “Great deference” is given to a magistrate’s determination of probable cause to support 

the issuance of a warrant. Id. (citation omitted). The magistrate’s determination of probable 

cause should be affirmed if the record contains a “substantial basis for his probable cause 

findings.” United States v. Alfano, 838 F.2d 158, 162 (6th Cir. 1988). To determine if a warrant 

establishes probable cause, a court “look[s] only to the four corners of the affidavit; information 

known to the officer but not conveyed to the magistrate is irrelevant.” Brooks, supra, 594 F.3d 

at 492 (citation omitted). 

 Defendant asserts that the Affidavit in this matter does not establish probable cause 

because it lacks detail and support in several respects. But, an “affidavit is judged on the 

adequacy of what it does contain, not on what it lacks, or on what a critic might say should have 

been added.” United States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir. 2000). Here, the Affidavit 

states that on or about June 25, 2014, Officer Janowicz received a tip that a black male known as 

“Mann” with a possible last name of “Lewis,” who was approximately 30 years old, six feet tall, 

and heavy set, was known to distribute street-level quantities of heroin and pharmaceuticals from 

within the Morrell Street residence. (Docket no. 30-1.) While the Affidavit does not specify the 

source of the tip or provide any information regarding when the drug activity allegedly occurred, 

“probable cause can still exist if the officer sufficiently corroborates the tip.” United States v. 

Ronnie Buffer, 529 F. App'x 482, 484 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Brooks, supra, 594 F.3d at 493 

(“[I]n the absence of any indicia of the informants’ reliability, courts insist that the affidavit 

2:14-cr-20420-VAR-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 5 of 11 Pg ID 119
6 

contain substantial independent police corroboration.” (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted))). 

 The Sixth Circuit has held that information regarding a controlled purchase is sufficient 

corroborating information from which the issuing magistrate could derive a substantial basis for 

concluding that drugs would be found at the search location. See United States v. Archibald, 685 

F.3d 553, 557-58 (6th Cir. 2012) (affidavit stating that an informant made a controlled purchase 

of narcotics while under police surveillance within 72 hours of the affidavit and describing the 

officers’ arrangements for the controlled purchase, contained sufficient corroborating 

information); see also United States v. Coffee, 434 F.3d 887, 893-95 (6th Cir. 2006) (officer’s 

affidavit sufficiently corroborated confidential informant’s (CI’s) tip where it detailed the 

circumstances of a controlled purchase, through which the officer searched the CI for money or 

contraband, provided the CI with pre-recorded funds, observed the CI enter and exit the house, 

and tested the crack cocaine that the CI purchased from the defendant). 

 Here, Officer Janowicz conducted a controlled purchase at the search location through 

the use of a confidential source, which he describes in the Affidavit. (Docket no. 30-1 at 3-4.) 

Specifically, the Affidavit states that within the past 48 hours, Officer Janowicz met with the CS 

at a prearranged location where the CS was searched for any narcotics, paraphernalia, and 

weapons, as witnessed by another member of DEA Detroit Group 5, with none being found. 

According to the Affidavit, the CS was then issued pre-recorded funds and kept under constant 

visual surveillance from the prearranged location until he entered the Morrell Street residence. 

The Affidavit informs that within minutes of entering the Morrell Street residence, the CS was 

observed exiting the residence and walked directly to the prearranged meet location, where the 

CS produced two Schedule IV pharmaceutical pills. The Affidavit states that the CS was again 

2:14-cr-20420-VAR-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 6 of 11 Pg ID 120
7 

searched for narcotics, paraphernalia, and weapons, and none were found. The Affidavit also 

states that the CS pointed out a car and informed that it belonged to “Mann,” which car was later 

confirmed to belong to Defendant. Finally, the Affidavit advises that the CS “has proven to be 

credible and truthful based on names and information of narcotic distributors that has been 

confirmed through the knowledge of Affiant as well as [the] law enforcement data base” and that 

positive identification of and the location of residence for Mann Lewis were confirmed based on 

information received from the CS. 

 Defendant makes several challenges to the Affidavit’s description of the controlled 

purchase. (Docket no. 33 at 3-4.) First, Defendant argues that there is no support for the 

conclusion in the Affidavit that the two pills that the CS turned over to Officer Janowicz were 

Schedule IV pharmaceuticals, because, unlike the affidavit in United States v. Pinson, 321 F.3d 

558, 563 (6th Cir. 2003), the Affidavit in this matter doesn’t indicate that the pills were tested, 

labeled, or otherwise identified as controlled substances. (Docket no. 33 at 3.) In Pinson, the 

court held that the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause where the affidavit 

affirmed the officer’s personal observation of the controlled purchase, the officer’s pat down of 

the informant before and after the purchase, and the fact that the drugs purchased by the CI later 

tested positive for cocaine. Pinson, 321 F.3d at 563, 565. The court’s holding in Pinson, 

however, was based on the totality of the circumstances, Id. at 565, and it therefore does not 

institute a requirement that an affidavit provide the laboratory test results of drugs rendered in a 

controlled purchase, as Defendant implies. Moreover, given Officer Janowicz’s experience in 

investigating controlled substance trafficking, as outlined in the Affidavit, he could reasonably 

be assumed to be familiar with Schedule IV pharmaceuticals and able to identify them by 

observation. See Allen, supra, 211 F.3d at 973-74, 975 (citation omitted). Such experience 

2:14-cr-20420-VAR-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 7 of 11 Pg ID 121
8 

provides ample support for his affirmation that the pills turned over to him by the CS were 

Schedule IV pharmaceuticals. See id. For these reasons, Defendant’s argument in this regard 

fails. 

 Next, Defendant argues that the Affidavit does not demonstrate that a sale actually took 

place because there is no indication that the pre-recorded funds were exchanged for the pills and 

there is no mention of any conversations between the CS and the person who gave him the pills 

regarding any future drug transactions. (Docket no. 33 at 3.) Defendant generally cites to 

United States v. Williams, 650 F. Supp. 2d 633, 655 (W.D. Ky. 2009) to support this argument, 

but his reliance on this case is misplaced, as the page he cites to relates to the community 

caretaking function of the police as a basis for a warrantless seizure of a vehicle. A further 

reading of Williams actually defeats Defendant’s instant argument, as, in finding that the 

affidavit in that matter contained a substantial basis to establish probable cause, the Williams

court relied on United States v. Martin, 526 F.3d 926, 936–37 (6th Cir. 2008) for the premise that 

“an affidavit is not insufficient merely because it lacks explicitness of detail and every statement 

is not corroborated” and on United States v. May, 399 F.3d 817, 826 (6th Cir. 2005) for the 

premise that “an affidavit need not contain a detailed factual basis for every statement therein in 

order to support the judge's finding of probable cause.” Williams, 650 F. Supp. 2d at 659. Those 

same premises apply to the Affidavit in the instant matter and they invalidate Defendant’s instant 

argument. 

 Defendant also argues that “[t]he fact that there was only one instance of a delivery, 

especially when the pills were never established to be an illegal substance, does not support a 

finding that the Morrell address was part of an ongoing drug operation.” (Docket no. 33 at 3.) 

He also points out that the Affidavit does not mention any additional controlled purchases or 

2:14-cr-20420-VAR-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 8 of 11 Pg ID 122
9 

other surveillance, citing United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480, 485-86 (6th Cir. 2006). (Id. at 

3-4.) But the Sixth Circuit has found that “a single controlled purchase is sufficient to establish 

probable cause to believe that drugs are present at the purchase location.” Archibald, 685 F.3d at 

558 (citing United States v. Jackson, 470 F.3d 299, 307–08 (6th Cir. 2006) and Pinson, 321 F.3d 

at 565). In Hython, cited by Defendant, the court found that a single controlled purchase did not 

establish that the search location was the base for an ongoing drug enterprise, reasoning in part 

that there was no second controlled purchase or additional police surveillance. Hython, 443 F.3d 

at 486. Hython, however is distinguishable from Archibald and the instant matter in that the 

reliability of the controlled purchase was primarily called into question because the affidavit 

offered “no clue” as to when the controlled purchase took place, and the controlled purchase was 

not carried out by the known CI, but by an unidentified female. Id. 

 Here, the Affidavit demonstrates that Officer Janowicz took proper measures to ensure 

the reliability of the controlled purchase, including thoroughly searching the CS before and after 

the purchase, issuing pre-recorded funds to the CS for use in the purchase, maintaining 

surveillance of the CS to and from the Morrell Street residence, employing another member of 

DEA Detroit Group 5 to act as an additional witness to the purchase, and employing a known, 

credible CS to make the purchase. See United States v. Smith, 337 F. App'x 500, 504 (6th Cir. 

2009). Accordingly, under Archibald, the controlled purchase, conducted within 48 hours of the 

initial tip, is sufficient corroborating information from which the issuing magistrate could derive 

a substantial basis for concluding that drugs would be found at the Morrell Street residence. 

Based on the totality of the circumstances – the initial tip, the controlled purchase conducted 

within 48 hours of the tip, the stated reliability of the CS, Officer Janowicz’s observations, and 

Officer Janowicz’s experience – the Affidavit contains a substantial basis for the magistrate’s 

2:14-cr-20420-VAR-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 9 of 11 Pg ID 123
10 

probable cause findings, and Defendant’s Motion to suppress the evidence from the execution of 

the search warrant at the Morrell Street residence and Defendant’s subsequent incriminating 

statements should be denied. Because this recommendation is made on the basis of sufficient 

probable cause, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule need not be addressed. See 

United States v. Patton, 411 F. App’x 806, 810 (6th Cir. 2011). 

 C. Conclusion

 For the reasons stated herein, the court should DENY Defendant’s Motion to Suppress 

Evidence and Defendant’s Statements (docket no. 30). 

III. NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

 The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and 

Recommendation, but are required to act within fourteen (14) days of service of a copy hereof as 

provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 72.1(d). 

Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. 

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th 

Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing of objections which 

raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity, will not preserve all the objections a 

party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human 

Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n Of Teachers Local 231, 829 

F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections 

is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge. 

 Any objections must be labeled as “Objection #1,” “Objection #2,” etc. Any objection 

must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not 

later than fourteen days after service of an objection, the opposing party must file a concise 

2:14-cr-20420-VAR-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 10 of 11 Pg ID 124
11 

response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. The response must 

specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order and labeled as 

“Response to Objection #1,” “Response to Objection #2,” etc. 

Dated: July 27, 2016 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

 MONA K. MAJZOUB 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

PROOF OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of this Report and Recommendation was served upon counsel 

of record on this date. 

Dated: July 27, 2016 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

 Case Manager

2:14-cr-20420-VAR-MKM Doc # 35 Filed 07/27/16 Pg 11 of 11 Pg ID 125