The Mag istrate’s Repor t and R ecommendation notes that Robins on “testified at the 1 [suppression] hear ing that the spelling of his first name is Uly sees, rather than Uly sses. The Court wi ll a do pt t

he a c c ur a te sp e lli ng of the de fe nd ant’ s name in a ny te xtua l r e fe re nc e . H ow e ve r, the sty le [caption] of the c ase w ill remain the same a s it ref lects t he indi ctment.” ROA v. 1, 36. This court’s docket she et also has Robinson’s first name spelled as “ Uly sses.”

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: 09a0730n.06 No. 07-6190 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. UL YSSES ROBI

NSON, De fe nd ant - Ap pe lla

nt.

____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

BEF OR E: G UY , C LA Y a nd WH ITE, Ci r c uitJudg e s.
WHITE , Circuit Judge. A fe dera l gr and jury char g ed def

endant Uly sees Robinson in a 1
t h r e e - c o u n t i n d i c t m e n t w i t h p o s s e s s i o n w i t h i n t e n t t o d i s t r i b u t e 5 g r a m s o r m o r e o f c o c a i n e , in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b) (1)( B) , being a felon in possession of a fir ear m, in violation of 18 U. S.C. § 9 22 (g )( 1) , a

nd po sse ssi on

of a fi re arm in f

ur the ra nc e of a dr ugtr a ff ic kin g c ri me , in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c ). The district c ourt denied Robinson’s motion to suppress evidenc e seized pursuant to a sea

rch w arr ant. Followinga jury trial, Robinson was convicted as charg ed, and

se nte nc e d to 36 0 mo nth s’ imp ri so nme nt ( a s a c are e r of fe nd e r)

. Rob ins on a

pp e a ls the de nia l of

his
mot ion to s up pr e ss t

he se arc h w arr ant. We A F F I RM.No. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

- 2 - I

Af te r t hr e e un c on tr oll e d b uy s d

ur ingwh ic h th e se lle r w a s fo llo we d by un de rc ov e r a g e nts to 1828 Norlil Road, Sevierville, Tenne ssee, police soug ht and obtained a sear ch wa

rra n t fo r t he residenc e at t h at ad d re s s . Robinson, who was prese nt when the se arc h war rant wa s executed and who was c h ar g e d

b a s e d o nit e ms f

o u n d d u r in g th e s e ar c h , mo v e d

to s u p p r e s s th e e v id e n c e s eized purs ua nt to the wa

rr ant, a sse rt ing that the a ff ida vit in su pp or t of the se arc h w arr ant i nc lud e d f a lse
sta te me nt s an d o m i t t e d m a t e r i a l f a c t s , an d t h a t t h e a f

f i d a v i t f a i l e d t o e s t a

b l i s h p r o b a

b l e c a u s e to believe that evidence of cr iminal activity would be found at the Norlil Road residenc e. Following a suppre ssion hearing , the mag istrate judge rec ommended denial of Robinson’s motion to suppress, concluding that g iven the ong oing and continuous nature of t h e a ppare nt criminal ente rprise, more than a f air proba bility exis ted that coc aine, c ontraba nd, marke d money , or other e vidence of cr iminal activity would likely

be found at 1828 Norlil Road.
Robinson f

il e d a n o ti c e o f o b

je c ti o n to th e ma g is tr a te ’ s d e c is io n , b u t d id n o t arti c ulate a specific objection. The district c ourt, while noting the abse nce of any s p ec i fi c objection by Robinson, st ated that it nonethele ss had re viewed the mag istrate’ s re p o rt and re commendation de

novo . T he dis tr ic t c ourt

a do pte d th e c on c lus ion s of the ma g ist rate , ove rr

ule d Robi ns on ’s ob

je c tio ns , and denie d Robinson’s moti on to suppress.

ANo. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

- 3 - Pr e lim ina ri ly , th e Go ve rnme nt a sse rt s th a t be c a us e Rob ins on

fa ile d to ob

je c t sp e c if

ic a lly to the mag istrate judg e’s Repor t and Recommendation, his challeng e to the denial of his suppre ssion motion is unrevie wable. A lthough this court ha s held that “[a] ge nera l objection to the entirety of the mag istrate’s r eport ha s the same ef fe ct s as would a fa ilure to object[,] ” Howard v. Sec ’y of He alt h &Hu ma n S

e rv s. , 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991), and the district cour t properly could have

re je c te d Ro bin so n’ s argume nts on thi s b a sis a lon e , a s c ou ld w e , b e c a us e the dis tr ic t c ourt

c ho se to de c ide thi s is su e on

the me ri ts, we wi ll r e vie w i t on the me ri ts a s w e ll.

B

Th is c ourt

re vie ws a dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on on a mot ion to s up pr e ss u

nd e r t wo sta nd a rd s: fac tual finding s are to be upheld unless clea rly err oneous, and le g al conc lusions as to the ex istence of probable cause are revie wed de novo. United States v. Combs , 369 F.3d 925, 937 (6th Cir. 2004). This court ac cords g reat defe renc e to an issuing judge ’s finding of probable cause i n a sea rch w arr ant application. United States v. W illiams , 544 F.3d 6 8 3 , 6 8 5 (6 th Cir. 2008). “[T] he duty of a revie wing court is simply to ensure that the mag istrate had a substantial basis for c o n cludi ng that probable cause exis ted.” U n it e d S ta te s v. Laughton , 409 F.3d 744, 747 ( 6th Cir. 2005) (quoting Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 238-239 (1983))

.

T h e F o u rth

A me n d me n t s tate s th a t “ n o War r an ts s h a ll is s u e , b u t u

p on probable cause , supported by Oath or a ffirmation, . . . .” U.S. Const. Amend. I V. Whe the r a

wa rr ant s ho uld

iss ue , a nd the un de rl y ing

qu e sti on of wheth e r p ro ba ble c a us e ha s b e e n e sta

bli sh e d, are to be de c ide d “ by a ne utr a l and

de ta c he d ma g istra

te instead of be ing judg ed by the officer e ng ag ed in the ofte n competitive enter prise of fer reting out c rime.” Johnson v. U nited States , 3 3 3 U

. S

. 1 0 , 1 4 , 6 8 S

. C t
. 3 6 7 , 9 2 L.No. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

- 4 - Ed . 4 36 (1 94 7) . T he Sup re me Court ha s e sta bli sh e d th a t a

wa rr ant m us t be up he ld as l ong as t he “mag istrate had a ‘substantial basis for .

. . concluding ’ that a se arc h would uncover evidenc e of wrong doing . . . .” Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 236, 103 S. Ct . 2317, 76 L . Ed. 2d 527 (1983) (interna l c itations omitted). I n order to be a ble to p ro pe rl y

de te rm ine wh e the r p ro ba

ble c a us e e xis t s s u f

fi c ie nt t o is su e a

wa rr ant, the mag istrate must be pre sented with an a ffidavit conta ining a dequate supporting fac ts about the underly

ing c ircumstance s, either fr o m the direc t knowledg e of the aff iant or fr om reliable hear say information; bare conclusions ar e not enoug h. [ United States v. ] W

eave r , 99 F.3d [1372,] 1377 [(6th Cir. 1996).] “The task of the issuing mag istrate is simply to m ake a

prac tical, common-sense decision whe ther, g ive n a ll th e c ir c u ms ta

n c e s s e t f

o rth in th e a f

f id a v it b e f o r e h im , in c luding the ‘ver acity ’ and ‘ basis of knowledg e’ of persons supplying he arsa y information, there is a fair probability

that con t ra b an d o r evide nce of a cr ime will be found in a particula r plac e.” Gates , 4 62 U. S. at 23 8, 10 3 S. Ct. 23 17 . We a pp ly thi s “ tot a lity of the c ircumstance s” test to the af fidavits prese nted in this case. Un ite d S tat es v . W est , 520 F.3d 604, 609 ( 6th Cir. 2008).

Fran k s v . D e law ar e , 438 U.S. 154 (1978), “r ecog nized a defe ndant’s rig ht to challeng e the

su ff i ci en cy of an e x ecute d sear ch wa rra nt on the basis that ‘a f alse stateme nt knowingly and intentionally , or with rec kles s d i sreg ard f or the truth, wa s included by the af fiant in the wa

rra nt

a f f id a v it , an d

. . . the alle g e d ly

f a ls e s tate me n t i s n e c e s s ar y to th e f in d in g o f p r o b a b le c a u s e [. ]” Un ite d S tat es v . A tk

in , 1 0 7 F. 3 d 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 1 6 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Franks , 438 U.S. at 155-56). Howeve r, under Franks , the def endant is entitled to an ev i d entiary hear ing on the ve ra c ity of the state me nts in t

he a ff ida vit if and only

if (1) the re is a substantial pr el i m i n ar y showing that specifie d portions of the af

fiant’s averme nts are de liberate l y or re cklessly

false and

(2) a finding of proba

ble ca use would not be supporte d by the re maining co n t ent of the aff idavit when the a lleg edly false material is set to one side. At k in , 1 0 7 F. 3 d

at 1 2 1 6 -1 7 (q u o t i n g Un ite d S tat es v . Ca mp be ll , 878 F.2d 170, 171 ( 6th Cir. 1989) (empha sis in original))

.No. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

- 5 - I n United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984), the Supreme Court he ld that evidence need not be excluded if it was obtained by police off

icer s acting in rea sonable re liance on a sear ch

war rant issued by a detached and neutral mag istrate but ultimately found t o be invalid. However, “[s] uppression .

. . rema ins an appropriate remedy if the mag istrate or judg e in issuing a war rant wa s mis le d b y inf or ma tio n in an af

fi davit that the a ff

iant k ne w w a s f a lse or wo uld have kn ow n w a s f

a lse except for his re ckless disreg ard of the truth.” Id. at 9 2 3 , ci t i n g Franks , 438 U.S. 154.

II
The a ffidavit in support of the se arc h war rant stated:

1. Iam a Spec ial Ag ent with the State of Tenne ssee F ourth judicial district Dru g an d Vi o l en tC ri m e T as k

Fo rc e. I h a v e b e e nem p l o y edb y t h e P i geo nFo rge Police Depa

rtment for a

pproxi mately

6 y ear s, the past 2.5 y ear s of which Ihave be en assig ned to the Dr

ug Task F orce . . . . Durin g t he past 11 y ear s as an of fice r and Dr ug Ta sk F or c e Ag e nt I have be e n inv olv e d wi th or pa rt ic ipate d in

a pp ro xima te ly 30 0 n arc oti c inv e sti g a tio ns . I have wo rk e d in

an und e rc ov e r c a

pacity to p ur c ha se narc otics and g ain i n t el l ige nce. I have e x ecute d sear ch wa rra nts, conducted surv e il la n c e o f dr u g tr an s a c ti o n s , s e iz e d

e v id e n c e , ar

r e s te d s u s p e c ts , in te r

v ie wed suspects and c onfer

red w ith L ocal, State, a

nd Fe dera l Prosecut o rs and other L aw En fo rc e me nt O ff

ic ia ls i n my

c omm un ity re g ard ing na

rc oti c inv e sti g a tio ns , a

nd a s a result, g ained c onsiderable experience

. 2. On October 27, 2004, while in an unde rcove r ca pacity , Ipurcha sed coc aine from an individual. Dur ing that underc over dr ug transac tion after the individual was g iven money

by me, DrugTask F orce Ag ents followed the pe rson to 1828 Norlil road Sevierville, Tenne ssee. The individual then broug ht back what was believe d to be Cocaine f rom the re sidence

. 3. On November 0 4 , 2004 while in an under cover capa city , Ipurcha sed coca ine from the sa

me individual. During that underc over dr ug transac tion after the targ et was g iven money by me, Drug Task For ce Ag ents followed the pe rson to 1828 Norlil road Sevier

ville, Tennesse e. The individual then br o u gh t b ac k what wa s believed to be Cocaine f

rom the re sidence

.No. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

- 6 -

4. On Novembe r 05, 2004 a third unde rcove r drugtransac tion wa s conducte d from the same individual. The individual was follow ed t o 1 828 Norlil Road Sevierville, Tenne ssee. The individual then broug ht back what was believe d to be coca ine from the r esidenc e. 5. The white pow der substanc e in the above three occa sions field tested positive for coc aine. 6. Ba se d on above intellig ence , surveillance , experience and tra ining, Af fiant David L

. J oy

ner believes that illega l narc otics and drugproce eds ar e in the re sidence of 18 28 No rl il r oa d Se vie rv ill e , T e nn e sse e . T he re sid e nc e to b e se arched has a phy sical addr ess of: 1828 Norlil Road Sevierville, Te nnessee . 7

. I re qu es t t o s ea rc h t h e ab o v e m en t i o n edre s i d en ce , i n cl u d i n g o u t b u i l d i n gs and vehic les for: na

rcotics, pa ckag ing materials use d t o p acka g e and pr eser ve na rc oti c s, we ig hin g de vic e s . . . and oth e r do c ume ntatio n wh ic h r e fl e c t na rc oti c sa le s, wea pons, which are used as protec tion de vices in the illega l drug trade , illega l drug proce eds and sur

veillance equipment. All of these items c onstitut e contr aband; proper ty used, or intende d to be used in commission of a drug offe nse in violation of the laws of the State of Tenne ssee. The mag istrate judg e conduc ted a suppre ssion hearing

. Special Ag ent David Joy ner of the Pigeon F org e Police De partment testified at the hearing that he obtained a sea rch w arr ant for 1828 Norlil Road on November 5, 2004, and that he a

nd sever al ot her drug task forc e off icer s executed the war rant on that date. Ag ent J oy ner te stified that on October 27, November

4, and November

5, 20 04 , a c oo pe ratin g ind ivi du a l/c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ant d ro ve him to a pa rk ing lot to m e e t w ithGi ll Thomas, who wa s unawa re that J oy

ner w as work i n g u nderc over. The confide ntial informant had

c on ta c te d Th oma s to purc ha se c oc a ine and arr ang e d the tr a ns a c tio ns . On e a c h of the thr e e date s, Th o m as appr oache d the driver ’s side of the c ar, a nd J oy ner g ave ma

rked bills to the cooper ating individual, who ha

nded them to T homas in Joy ner’ s prese nce. Thomas was under sur veillance by Offic er K evin B ush, who testified that on eac h of the thre e mentioned dates, he followe d ThomasNo. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

- 7 - from the location at which Thomas met J oy ner and the confidential informant to 1828 Norlil Road, observe d Thomas g o inside 1 8 2 8 No rlil Road and emer g e about f ive minutes later, a

nd followed Thomas as Thomas dr ove s tr a ig h t b a c k to A g ent J oy

ner’ s (and the c onfidential informa nt’s) location.
When A g ent J oy

ner and other office rs executed the sear ch war rant on November

5 , 2 0 0 4, Robin s o n h ad coca ine in his pocket, and the office rs found dig ital scales, mar ked cur renc y and a loaded f irea rm in the house. Ag ent J oy

ner tes t i fied that Thomas w as unaw are that he (Thoma s) was pa rticipating in a p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . J o yn e r t e s t i f i e d t h a tT h o m a s w a s n o ts e ar c h e d b e f o r e h e w e n t o n t h e t h r e e b u ys beca use it would have e x posed the unde rcove r oper ation.
Neither party ci tes to questioning or

testimony

at the suppre ssion hearingaddre ssing why Ag ent J oy

ner did not include in the sear ch wa rra nt affidavit that a confide ntial informant ar rang ed and par ticipated in the coca ine buy s (and that the confide ntial inf ormant, rather than A g ent J oy ner, ha nd e d th e buy

mon e y to T ho ma s)

. Ro bi ns on c or re c tly a sse rt s th a t th e Go ve rnme nt’ s a pp e llate brief’ s fa cts section does not mention the conf idential informant. Howe ver, the argument section of the Gove rnment’s a

ppellate br ief a sserts: “That Ag ent J oy ner did not persona lly hand the money to Thomas, but rather g ave it to the cooperating individual who, i n turn, handed it to Thomas in front of the ag ent does not ne g ate Ag ent J oy ner’ s repr esentation that he g ave money to T homas for w hich he subseque ntly

rec eived c ocaine (ag ain, via the c ooperator who wa s acc ompanying the ag ent).”No. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

Robinson does not argue that he w as entitled to a fur ther e videntiary

hear ing unde r Franks , 2 su pra . - 8 - Robinson asserts that Ag ent J oy ner misled the issuing mag istrate by omitti ng sever al cr ucial fa c ts fr om the se arc h warr ant af fi davit : 1) the re wa s no men tio n of the pa rt ic ipatio n o f t

he fe ma le confide ntial informant (CI ) who a ctually conducte d the buy s ; 2 ) t here was no mention that the “individual” dea ling with the f emale CI , the seller, w as not sear ched to make sure that he did not alre ady have dr ug s on him; and 3) the re w as no re fer ence to the fac t that the “individual” wa s not

sear ched to make sure he did not possess any signific ant amount of money . Robinson arg ues that beca use Ag ent J oy

ner reckle ssly disreg arde d important fac ts in his affidavit, the issuing judg e wa s misled, probable c ause w as not established, and the district court’s orde r deny ing Robinson’s motion to suppress must be reve rsed a nd his conviction vacated. Robinson also asser ts that in finding the 2 aff idavit sufficient to support the wa rra nt, the m ag istrate erroneously relied on information provided
at the suppression hear ing that was not in the aff idavit. We f

ind no err or in the denial of Robinson’s
mot ion to s up pr e ss. The mag istrate judg e’s Repor t and Recommendation state s in pe rtinent part, “In the case at hand, both the aff

idavit a nd the uncontrove rted testimony at the hea ring established that Joy

ner a nd the CIbroug ht money

to an appare ntly

unsuspecting Thomas and a sked him to obtain coca ine for them.” Se e als o portion of Report and Re commendation quoted inf ra . I t is un c le ar o n w hat ba sis the mag istrate judg e conc luded that the af fidavit established that J oy ner a nd the CIbroug ht money to Thomas for the buy . The a ffidavit did not mention the CI , and without that i n fo rm ation, it canNo. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

- 9 - only be re ad as sa

y ing that J oy

ner g ave the money to Thomas direc tly . I n any event, a lthough the aff idavit omits the par

ticipation of t he C I , J oy

ner’ s statements wer e, neve rtheless, ba sed on per sonal observation. The import of the mag istrate’s c onclusion is sound. Thomas was g iven buy money by J oy ner, a lbeit throug h the hands of t h e C I , i n J oy ner’ s prese nce. U nder the se circ umstances, we ag ree with the Gover

nment that Robinson has not shown t h at Agent Joy ner pur posely excluded information from his af

fidavit or that he intende d to misl ead the judge who issued the wa rra nt.

III
Reg ardingwhether

probable cause exis ted to sear ch 1828 Nor lil Ro a d , the mag istrate judg e’s Re po rt and Re c omm e nd a tio n s ta te s in pe rt ine nt p art :
Def endant Robinson argues that the a ffidavit did n o t supply sufficie nt probable cause to support the issuance of a sea rch w arr ant for 1828 N orlil Road. De fe nd ant a

rgue s th a t th e natur e of the inv e sti g a tio n, “ un c on tr oll e d b uy s, ” pr e se nts so many evidentiar

y shortcoming s that it cannot provide the basis for issuance of

a se arc h w arr ant. De fe nd ant R ob ins on pr e se nte d a numb e r o f a lte rn a tiv e sc e na ri os to the sale of coc aine f

rom 1828 Norlil Road. Whil e the Court ag ree s that “controlled buy s,” [ sic ] would provide a superior basis for a probable cause finding , the issuing Tenne ssee state Circuit Court J udg e Vanc e had only the three uncontrolled buy s from which to dra

w his conclusion. . . . I n the ca se at hand, both the aff idavit a nd the uncontrove rted testimony at the he ari nge sta

bli sh e d th a t Joyner and the CI br ou g ht m on e y

to a n a pp are ntl y unsuspecting Thomas and asked hi m to obtain coca ine for the m. [ Offic er] Bush then followed Thomas f

rom J oy ner and the CIto 1828 Norlil Road, never losing sig ht of him. Thomas went inside the addr ess for a short time, then returne d to his car a nd trave led direc tly

back to Joy

ner a nd t h e C I wher e he ha

nded over

the re quested c oc a i n e . T h i s s c e n ar i o h a p p e n e d t h e s a m e w ay

t h r e e t i m e s i nl e s s t h an1 0 d a y s, including the day

of the sea

rch w arr ant re quest. T h ese f acts we re pr esente d to the state Ci r c u it

Co u rt Ju d g e in

th e f o r m o f ana f f id a v it an d a p p li c a ti o nf

o r a s ear ch war rant. The Court finds that it w as a rea sonable, c ommon sense deduc tion thatNo. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

- 10 - Thomas went to the house at 1828 No rl i l R o ad and exchang ed the buy money for coca ine and returne d with the coca ine and delivere d it to Joy ner a nd the CI . As such, and g iven the re peate d, ong oing a n d conti nuous nature of

this appare nt criminal enter prise, fr om October

27, 2004 throug h No v e mb e r 5, 2004, there exis ted more that [ sic ] a “ fa ir

pr ob a bil ity” that cocai ne, c on tr a ba nd , th e mark e d mo ne y , p ro pe rt y desig ned for use or intended for use or used in c ommitt ing a crime (e.g ., wea pons), or other e vidence of cr iminal activity would likely be found inside 1828 Norlil Road. Th e Court c on c lud e s tha t this af fi davit su pp lie d s uf fi c ie nt f a c ts t o c on sti tut e a substantial basis for c oncluding there was, “a probability or substantial cha nce of c ri min al ac tiv ity , n ot a

n a c tua l sh ow ingof

su c h a c tiv ity” a t th is r e sid e nc e . I lli no is v. Gates, 462 U .S. 213, 244 n.13 (1983). I n a close ly related arg ument, defe ndant Robinson challeng es the suff iciency of the ne x us betwee n any

criminal ac tivity and 1828 Norlil Road, to support a sea rch war rant; mu ch argument was de voted to the per son of the def endant. A se arc h war rant a ffidavit mus t i d entify the place to be sea

rche d, the objects or ty

pe of ev i d en ce s o u g ht, and a ne x us betwee n the two that is, it must state why the af fiant believes the evidenc e will likely be found in that place. U nited States v. Hy thon, 443 F.3d 480, 485 ( 6th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. VanShutters, 163 F .3d 331, 336 (6th Cir. 1998). . . For the[se] rea sons the Court finds that the issuing judg e had adequate information befor e him that provided a substantial ba sis f or conc luding that a de qu a te pr ob a

ble c a us e e xiste d f

or the iss ua

nc e of the se arc h w arr ant f

or thi s resi d ence[.] The Court likewise f inds there wa s sufficient ne x us betwee n the c ri min a l a c tiv ity

de sc ri be d in

the a ff ida vit and the loc a tio n to be s e arc he d. Ea c h ti me money was g iven to T homas, he traveled to the same location (1828 N orlil Road) that wa s th e su

bje c t of the se arc h warr ant an d ea c h time re tur ne d w ithc oc a ine . In f

a c t, due to th e n a tu

r e o f th is c o n ti n u in g o p e r a ti o n , th e c o n n e c ti o n b e tw e e n th e s a le of coca ine and the loc ation to be sea rche d was the g rava

men of the a ffidavit; there was no information about an individual to be f ound at t he location. The whole operation cente red on the specific addre ss, and as such, this Court find s there was suff icient ne xus b e tw een th e un de rc ov e r p ur c ha se s o f c oc a ine and the ho us e a t 18 28 No rl il Road. Acc ording ly , the Court finds the s ear ch warra nt was supported by

sufficie nt probable cause and a suf

ficient ne x us to the place to be sea rche d. [Footnote omitt ed.]

A war rant must be upheld as long as the “mag istrate had a ‘substantial basis for

. . . conclud[ing]’ that a sear ch would uncover evidenc e of wrong doing

. . . .” Gates , 462 U.S. at 236. I n o rd e r to be a

ble to pr op e rl y de te rm ine wh e the r p ro ba ble c a us e e xists su ff

ic ie nt t o is su e a

wa rr a nt,No. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

- 11 - the mag istrate must be pre sented with an a ffidavit conta ining a dequate supporti n g fa ct s about the underlying c ircumstance s, either f rom the direc t knowledg e and observations of the af fiant or f rom
re liable hea

rsay information; bare conclusions ar e not enoug h. United States v. W eave r , 99 F.3d 13 72 , 1 37 7 ( 6th

Cir . 1 99 6) . “ Th e ta sk

of the iss uin g ma g ist rate is s imp ly to m a ke a

pr a c tic a l,

c omm on -s e ns e de c isi on wh e the r, g ive n all the c ir c ums tanc e s set fo rt h in the a ff

ida vit be fo re him , including the ‘ver acity ’ and ‘ basis of knowledg e’ of persons supplying he arsa y information, there is a fair p robabili ty

that contra

band or e vidence of a c rime will be found in a pa rticular pla ce.” Gates , 462 U.S. at 238.
We first observe that Robinson correc tly asser ts that the mag istrate judge rec ited fac ts that

wer e testified to at the hear ing, but w ere not in the aff idavit. These f

acts a re not, howe ver, c rucia l to the fi n d i n g o f p ro bable c ause. It is true that the af fidavit does not state that Thomas w as see n enter ing 1828 N orlil. Nor does it state that he was g iven “mar ked” bills. Neve rthess, it state d that on all three occa sions h e wa s followed to that addr ess and that he immediately returne d to J oy

ner and delivere d the coca ine. Fur ther, the bills being marke d is irr eleva nt until t he money

is recove red. Nor doe s the af

fi d av i t m i s l ead one to believe that Thoma s was sea rche d at any

point in the
t ra n s ac t i o n . Ap p l yi n g t h e “ t o t al i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t an ce s ” t es t , we agr ee wi t h t h e m agi s t ra t e j u d ge and the district cour

t that the aff

idavit supplied adequate supporting fac ts to constitut e a substantial basis for c oncluding there was a fair pr obability

that evidenc e of c riminal activity would be found at 1828 Norlil. See G ates , 462 U.S. at 243-44 n.13. This conc lusion does n o t chang e whe n theNo. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

Be cause we r ejec t Robinson’s attacks on the wa rra nt, we nee d not addr e s s wh e th e r the police 3 wer e entitled to re ly

on the mag istrate’s a

uthorization. - 12 - involvement of the CI is added to the equation; nor i s it undermined by the fact that the buy s were not “controlled.” 3

We A F F I RM the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of Rob ins on ’s mot ion

to s up pr e ss.No. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

- 13 - CLAY, Circuit Judge, c oncurring in the judgm ent only. Be cause Def endant a dmits t hat his trial lawy er pose d only a g ener al objection to the mag istrate judg e’s r eport a nd rec ommendation, and fa iled to file specif

ic objections, our inquiry should end there. I ag ree with the district court’s order dismiss ing D efe ndant’s objections to the mag istrate judg e’s r eport a nd rec ommendation in the absenc e of a

ny specific objection, adopting the conc lusions of the mag istrate judg e, and ove rruling Def endant’ s objections.

Our task on appea l should have been to simply aff irm the district court’s order of dismissal

as a r esult of Def

endant’ s failure to file appropriate objections to the m ag istrate judge’ s repor t and

rec ommendation. I nstead, the majority opinion eng ag es in an e x tensive discussion of the mer its of the appe al and the issue of whether the Def endant’ s motion t o suppress should have be en g rante d or denie d. Iwould not have r eac hed the m er i t s o f t he appe al. As the majority itself notes, our pr e c e de nt i s c le ar t

hat a “ g e ne ra l ob

je c tio n to th e ent ir ety

of the ma g istra

te ’s re po rt

ha s th e same eff ect as would a failure to obj ect.” Howard v. Sec ’y of He ath & Human Serv s., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). See Sm ith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teac hers Local 231 , 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 ( 6th Cir. 1987) (ho l ding that “only those specif

ic objections to the mag istrate’s r eport made to the district court will be preserve d for appellate review)

. These case s support our decision in United States v. W alt e rs , 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981) , wher e we he ld that “a pa rty shall file objections with the district court or e lse waive rig ht to appea l.” Se e als o , Robert v. Tesson , 507 F.3d 981, 994 ( 6th Cir.No. 07-6190

United States v. Robinson

Be cause the W

alt e rs rule is not jurisdictional, we may waive it in the “inter ests of justice.” 1 See, e .g., Souter v. J

ones, 39 5 F .3 d 57 7, 58 5 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 5) . H ow e ve r, thi s c a se do e s n ot p re se nt, and the major ity

does not find, any

fac ts sufficiently

compelling to waive our

defa ult rule. - 14 - 2007) (a cknowledg ing that “a g ener al objection to a mag istrate judg e’s r eport, whic h fails to specify the issues of conte ntion, does not suffice to pr eser ve an issue f

or appe al”)

. 1

F or the se re a so ns , an d be c a us e I dis a g re e wi th the ma

jor ity ’s de c isi on

to c on sid e r the me ri ts of the a ppeal, I do not join the reasoningof the majority opinion. I nstead, Iconcur in the judgme nt only

.