NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0101n.06 No. 08-1961 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. CORNEL I US AHMAD WARREN, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

B e fo re : N ORRI S, CO OK , a nd GR I F F I N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. COOK, Circuit J udg e. Cornelius Warre n appea ls the district court’s denia l of his motion to suppress evidenc e discove red dur ing a sear ch of his re sidence . Be cause the district court pr op e rl y a pp lie d th e g oo d- fa ithe xce pti on , w e a ff ir m.
I. Assistant prosecutingattorney Da v id Guinn helped police of fice r Renae Bur

nett draf t an aff idavit in support of a sea

rch w arr ant for the residenc e of 1183 Ea st Alma S tree t in Flint, Michig an. T h e a f f id a v it r e late d th a t, o n e d ay p r io r , a r e li a b le c o n f id e n ti a l in f

o r ma n t u n d e r th e d ir e c ti o nand control of law

enfor ceme nt office rs p u rcha sed coc aine f rom an “ occupa

nt” of the A lma Street residenc e. Of

fice r B urnett and he r fe llow office rs observe d the “oc cupant” leave the re sidence andNo. 08-1961

United States v. W

arren

-2- deliver c ocaine to the informant “at or nea r” the premises
. T h e co n fi dential informant, unde r constant surve illance, then tr ansfe rre d the coc aine pur chase d with police-supplied pre-re corde d
curr ency to office rs on the sce ne. The aff idavit also ref

er en ce d Burnett’s experienc e in drug investigations and expressed her belief that “people who possess and sell controlled subst ance s from
c e rt a in a re a s o f a pr e mis e s te nd

to h a ve mor e c on tr oll e d s ub sta nc e s se c re te d in

oth e r a re a s . . . wi thi n the pre mises.”
Offic er B urnett pre sented the a ffidavit to J udg e Micha el McAr a of the 68th Dist ri ct Court of Mic hig an. Whil e e xami nin g the a ff ida vit and dis c us sin g the fa c ts of the c a se wi th O ff ic e r B ur ne tt, J udg e McA ra noticed seve ral inac cura cies a nd ambig uities. W hen aske d about these e rror s at the suppression hea

ring , Offic er B urnett explained that Prosecutor G uinn drafte d t h e warra nt by mod if yinga fo rm a ff

ida vit and ne g le c te d to c ha

ng e the bo ile rp late langua g e in c e rt a in p ara g ra ph s. Wit h Offic er Bur

nett’s approva l and assistance , the judge revised para g raphs 10, 11, and 12 by hand. I n para g raphs 11 and 12, J udg e McA ra c rossed out languag e er roneously indicating that the inf or mant h a d b e e n in sid e of the re sid e nc e ; but he fa ile d to c ro ss ou t simila r l angua g e in para g raph 9. In para g raph 10, J udg e McAra added languag e spec ifying that the transac tion had been pr e vio us ly

arr ang e d. An d, in p ara g ra ph12 , h e c lari fi e d that the oc c up ant of the re sid e nc e wa s, in fa ct , t h e i ndividual who sold drug s to the informant. Judge Mc Ara and Of fice r B urnett initialed
so me c ha ng e s, bu t no t ot

he rs . A ft e r O ff

ic e r B ur ne tt s wo re to th e tr

uth of the c or re c te d a ff ida vit , Judg e Mc Ar a

iss ue d th e se arc h w arr ant.No. 08-1961

United States v. W

arren

-3- Offic ers e x ecute d the sea

rch w arr ant the day of its issuanc e—one day afte r the tra

nsaction. When of fice rs enter ed the residenc e, they appre hended Warren in the act of flushing a bag of cr ack
coca ine down the toilet. Duringthe cour se of the se arc h, office rs seized approximately 32 g rams of
cra ck, a sma ll quantity

of marijuana , a dig ital scale, a nd a semi-a

utomatic pisto l co ntaining se ven live rounds.
A fe dera l gr and jury

indicted Warre n on four c ounts: possession with intent to distribute f ive g ra ms or mor e of c oc a ine ba se , in

vio latio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § 84 1; p os se ssi on wi th i nte nt t o d istri bu te marijuana , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841; possession of a fire arm in fur thera nce of a drug tr a ff ic kin g c ri me , in

vio latio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 92 4(c ); and fe lon in p os se ssi on

of a fi re arm , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g )(1)
. Warren moved to suppr ess evidenc e re cover ed duringthe sea rch and to exclude testimony

conce rning oral stateme nts made to police, a rg uing that the war

rant lac ked
s u f f i c i e n tf a c t s t o j u s t i f

y a f i n d i n g o f p r o b a

b l e c a u s e an d t h a t t h e g o o d
- f

a i t h e x c e p t i o n d i d

n o ta p p l y. Finding the exist ence of proba ble ca use “a close q u es t i o n , ” the district court re fra ined from
answe ring it a

nd, instead, relied on the g ood-fa ith e x ception to deny Warren’ s motion. United States v. W arren , No. 07-20072, 2007 WL4180741, at * 2 (E.D. Mic h. Nov. 26, 2007).
War re n e nte re d a

c on dit ion a l pl e a

of g uil ty to pos se ssi on

wi th i nte nt t o d ist

ri bu te fi ve g ra

ms
or mor e of c oc a ine ba se , r e se rv inghis ri g ht t o a pp e a l th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of his mot ion

to
su pp re ss. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc e d h im t o 1 35 mon ths ’ i mpr iso nme nt. War re n n owa pp e a ls.No. 08-1961

United States v. W

arren

-4- II.
United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897 (1984), permits revie wing courts to “r ejec t suppression motions posi ng no important Fourth Ame ndment q u es t i ons by turning immediately

to a consideration of the office rs’ g ood faith.” Id. a t 92 5. L ike the dis tr ic t c ourt , w e pr oc e e d d ir e c tly to a g ood-fa ith analy sis. W e re view the applicability of the g ood-fa ith ex ception de novo a nd examine fac tual finding s for c lear

err or. Se e Un ite d S

tates v . P ru itt , 458 F.3d 477, 480 ( 6th Cir. 2006).
I n Leon , the Supreme Court c arve d out a g ood-fai t h exception to the exclusi onary rule, allowing the introduction of evide nce se ized in re asonable relianc e on a subse quently invalidated
sear ch war

rant. Leon , 468 U.S. at 922. The Court we nt on, however , to enumerate four circ umstances in which suppr ession rema ins an appropr iate re m ed y : (1) whe re the supporting aff idavit c ontained knowing or rec kless falsity ; (2) whe re the issuing mag istrate wholly abandone d his or her judicia l role; (3) w here the aff idavit so lacke d probable cause as to rende r off icial belief in its existence entirely unrea sonable; or (4) whe re the office r’s re liance on the war rant wa s neither in good faith nor objec tively rea sonable. United States v. Frazier , 423 F.3d 526, 533 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (c i t i n g Leon , 4 6 8 U
. S
. a t9 2 3 )
. W ar r e nar g u e s t h a tt h e s e c o n d an d t h i r d c i r c u m s t an c e s a

p p l y. Warren first contends that, by excising and a dding la

ng uag e in the af

fidavit, J udg e McA ra
a ba nd on e d h is n e utr a l ju dic ia l r ole , b e c omi ng“ ‘a n a dju nc t la w e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e r’ ” un a

ble to “provide valid authorization for an other wise unconstitutional searc h.” Leon , 468 U.S. at 914 (q u o t i n g Lo-

J i S al es, In c . v . Ne w York, 442 U.S. 319, 326–27 (1979)). Judge McAra acte dNo. 08-1961

United States v. W

arren

-5- unconventionally

by corr ectingthe af

fidavit himself, but he did not f unction as a “‘r

ubber stamp for th e p o li c e .’” Id
. ( q u o t i n g Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108, 111 (1964)). O n the contra ry , by scrutinizing the verac ity of t he affidavit and making alterations to ensure its acc urac y , he executed his Fourth Amendme nt duty “with a c ritical ey e.” Frazier , 4 23 F .3 d at 53 8; see also United States v. Ramirez , 63 F.3d 937, 941–42 ( 10th Cir. 1995) (mag istrate’s alteration of sear ch wa rra nt did not
c a ll i nto qu e sti on

his ne utr a lity

or de ta c hme nt) ; United States v. Se rvan ce , 3 94 F .3 d 2 22 , 2 31 –3 2 ( 4th Cir. 2005), vacate d on other grounds , 544 U.S. 1047 (2005) (same).
Warren a lso argues that the a ffidavit’s f ailure to establish a nexus betwee n the drugdeal a nd the re sid e nc e re nd e re d a ny be lie f in pro bable c a

us e ob je c tiv e ly unre a so na

ble . T he g oo d- fa ith exception applies where “some modicum of evidenc e, howe ver slig ht, . . . connec t[ s] t he cr iminal activity descr ibed in the affidavit to the pl ace to be searche d.” United States v. Laughton , 409 F.3d 74 4, 74 9 ( 6th

Cir . 2 00 5) . In o the r w or ds , th e a ff ida vit mus t c on ta in m or e tha

n b are “ ‘s us pic ion s, beliefs or conclusions.’” United States v. Mc Phearson , 469 F.3d 518, 526 (6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Uni ted States v. W

eave r , 9 9 F
. 3 d

1 3 7 2 , 1 3 7 8 ( 6 th

Ci r . 1 9 9 6 ) )
. T h e f

a c ts h e r e
— O f

f ic e r B u r nett’s observation of Warren’ s exi t from the re s i d en ce an d immediate sale of coca ine to a conf

idential informant one bloc k awa

y —satisfied that standar d. See, e .g. , Un ite d S tates v . V an Sh utte rs , 163 F.3d 331, 336–38 (6th Cir. 1998) (a p p l y i n g the g ood-fa ith ex ception whe re a ffidavit desc ribed the
re sid e nc e , th e ite ms s ou g ht, and the de fe nd ant’ s c ounte rf

e iti ngsc he me , b ut c onne c te d th e pla c e toNo. 08-1961

United States v. W

arren

-6- the ill e g a l ac tiv ity on ly by statin g that the re sid e nc e wa s “ a va ila ble ” to t he de fe nd ant) ; United States v. Carpenter , 3 60 F .3 d 5 91 , 5 96 (6 th C ir . 2 00 4) (a pp lyingthe g oo d- fa ithe xce pti on wh e re a ff ida vit stated that a r oad conne cted the r esidenc e to a ne arby marijuana

field).
III
. We a ff ir m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of War re n’ s mo tio n to su

pp re ss.