NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 12a0619n.06 No. 11-5660 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. GREGORY L . REDDEN, Def endant- Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN

NESSEE

BEF ORE: BOG GS and COL E, Circuit J udg es; OL I VER, Chief District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Gre g ory L

. Redden appea ls the district court’s order deny ing his motion to suppress. On J anuar

y 3, 2010, law enfor ceme nt office rs executed a sear ch war rant at Redden’s motel

room and discovere d counter feit Fe dera l Reserve Notes and counter feiting equipment. Redden was char g ed wit h co n s p iring to manufa cture and possess counter feit Fe dera l Reserve Notes, manufa cturing counter feit Fe dera l Reserve Notes, and possessing counter feit fede ral rese rve notes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 471, and 472. After the district c ourt denied Redden’s motion to suppress the e vidence seized during the sea rch of his motel room, he pleade d g uilty to the char g es ag ainst him. The district court sentenc ed him to three concur rent prison terms of forty -one months.

The Honora

ble Solomo n Ol i ver, J r., Chief United States District J udg e for the Norther n * District of Ohio, sitting by desig nation.No. 11-5660

United States v. Re dden On ap p ea l , R edden arg ues that the sear ch war rant was invalid beca

use the supporting aff idavit lacke d probable cause and that the g ood-fa ith exception to the exclusionary rule should not apply

. When revie wing the denial of a motion to suppress, we re v i ew the district court’s fac tual finding s for clea

r err or and its leg al conclusions de novo. United States v. McCraney , 674 F.3d 614, 616 (6th Cir. 2012). “The Four th Amendment mandate s that a sea rch w arr ant may

only be issued upon a showing of proba

ble ca use.” United States v. Thomas , 605 F.3d 300, 307 ( 6th Cir. 2010). “Probable cause exis ts when there is a fair probability

. . . that contra band or evidenc e of a crime will be found in a

particula r plac e.” Id. (interna l quotation marks omitted). When revie wing the sufficie ncy of a s ea rch war rant aff idavit, we consider “whe ther the totality of the circ umstances supports a finding of proba ble ca use, ra ther than eng ag ing in line- by

line scrutiny .” United States v. W oosley , 361 F.3d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 2004). “[ W ] h er e a known person, named to the mag istrate, to whose r eliability an off icer attests with some detail, states that he has seen a particula

r crime and particula

r ev i d en ce , in the rec ent past, a neutra l and detac hed mag istrate may believe that evidenc e of a crime will be found.” Id. (quoting United States v. Allen , 211 F.3d 970, 976 ( 6th Cir. 2000) (en ba nc))

. Her e, the aff

idavit supporting the sear ch war rant stated that, during the previous twenty -four hours, the office r seeking the warra n t h ad been working on a case involving the making of
counter fe i t m o n ey . The aff idavit, while not a model of g rammar , also stated that the office r was working with a citizen informant who had provided cre dible information in previous case s “that g ot convictions. Mr. Redden have equipment at River Heig hts Motel Room #121 which is used to make
counter feit money .” Whil e the aff idavit could have been more expli cit in i t s t er m s , it rea sonably convey ed that the office r rec eived information from the informant, whose identity was disclosed to
-2-No. 11-5660

United States v. Re dden the judge who i s s u ed the sear ch war rant, that Redden had counter feiting equipment in his motel

room. Under the totality of the circ umstances, the judge who issued the sear ch wa rr an t had a substantial basis for finding that the aff idavit established probable cause to believe that evidenc e of
counter feiting would be found in Redden’s motel room. See id. Fur ther, even if the sear ch war rant

were defic ient, the evidenc e obtained during the sear ch was admissible under the g ood-fa ith exception to the exclusi onary rule because , despite Redden’ s arg ument to the contra ry , there is no evidenc e that the issuing judge abandoned his ne utral and de tache d role, a nd the af fidavit was not

so lacking in probable cause that belief in its exis tence was objectively unrea sonable. See Thomas , 605 F.3d a t 311. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm the district c ourt’s orde r deny ing Re dden’s motion to suppress.

-3-