The Honor able F rede rick P. Stamp, J r., S enior United States District J udg e for the Northe rn * District of West Virg inia, sitti ng by desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 09a0012n.06 Filed: January

8, 2009 No. 06-2616

UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA, P laintif f-App ellee,

v. CLINTON EARL WIL SON, Defendan t-Appellant. / ON AP P EA L F RO M THE U NI TED STA TES D ISTRIC T C OU RT F OR THE EASTE RN DISTRICT OF M ICHIGAN

BEFORE: CLAY and GIBBONS, Circuit Jud ges; and ST AMP , District Judge. * CLAY, Circ uit Jud ge. Def endant Clinton Earl Wilson (“Wi lson”) appe als his conviction for possession with intent to distribute more than five g rams of c ocaine b as e i n violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) , an d fo r being a fe lon in possession of a fire arm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g ). On a

ppeal, Wilson challeng es the district cour t’s denial of his moti on to suppress evidenc e of nar cotics and a

g un that police found during a sear ch of his r esidenc e pursuant to a war rant. For the following rea sons, we AF F IRM the judg ment of the district cour t. BACK GR OUNDNo. 06-2616

2 W il so n resid e d at 12 00 Web b Stre e t ( “ 12 00 Web b” ), a tw o- and -a -h a lf

sto ry , tw o- fa

mil y dw e lli ngin D e tr oit

wi th t wo fr on t do or s, on e le a din g to a do wn sta ir s r e sid e nc e and on e le a din g to an upstairs re sidence

. On Aug ust 9, 2004 , Rebec ca Mc Kay (“Mc Kay”), a

Detroit nar cotics off

icer , was investigating a

n anony mous tip that six to twelve Af rica n Americ an males w ere selling dr ug s from the lower window of 1200 Webb. As part of her inve stigation that day , McKa y g ave a confide ntial informant money

to purcha se drug s at 1200 Webb. Be fore sending the informant to the re sidence , Mc Ka y ma de sure the inf

or mant did no t hav e any dr

ug s or mon e y on his pe rs on and the n g a ve him funds to purcha se drug s. McKay watche d as the infor

mant met an unidentified Afric an Amer ican male (the “seller ”) on the porch in front of 1200 Webb and g ave the seller money . The infor mant

wa ite d o n the p orch a s th e se lle r w e nt i nto the ri g ht f ro nt d oo r o f t

he re sid e nc e and

re tur ne d w ith marijuana . The infor

mant g ave Mc Kay

the marijuana he had purcha sed and told her that the seller , afte r taking the money , had gone into the downst airs re sidence to retrieve the drug s. McKay testified that Wil son was not the seller , but was sitting on the por ch “[a] coup l e o f fe et ” fr o m where the transac tion took place. (Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 271.) McKa y continu ed investigating 1200 Webb, and on Aug ust 11, 2004, observed the seller from the Aug ust 9 sale c onduct two more tra nsactions on the fr ont porch. Ea ch time, McKa y saw the se lle r t a ke the purc ha se r’ s mo ne y , g o in to t he re sid e nc e via

the ri g ht f

ro nt d oo r, and

re tur n w ith dr ug s to se ll. Mc Ka

y a lso ob se rv e d th e se lle r c arr y ingout a sa le on a

str e e t c or ne r a pp ro xima te ly thirty y ards f rom 1200 Webb to a buy er in a vehicle.No. 06-2616

3 On Aug ust 12, 2004, McKay obtained a s ea rc h war

rant for 1200 Webb. Her suppor ting aff idavit, which was inc orporated into the war rant, de scribed the location to be sea rche d: Kn ow n a s th e e nti re pr e mis e s a nd c ur til e dg e of 12 00 Web b. Th e a

bo ve loc a tio n is de sc ri be d a s a br ow n br ic k, tw o and a ha lf sto ry , tw o fa mil y dw e lli ng , wi th a

sin g le common entra

nce. T he area to be searche d is the lower por tion of the dwelling . The location i s located on the north side of t he st ree t betwee n By ron and Hamilton. The location is located in the City of De troit, County

of Way ne, State of Michig an. (J.A. at 50.) McKay ’s af

fidavit also re counted the Aug ust 9 purcha se by the conf idential informant and the thre e drug s al es s h e obser ved on August 11, and stated that, base d on her e x perie nce, the volume of drug dealing at 1200 Webb indicated that a fire arm would likely be found on the premises

as we ll. L ater that day , a team of Detroit police of fice rs that included Mc Kay raide d and sea

rche d the lower r esidenc e at 1 200 Webb. McKay testified that bef

ore g oing to 1200 Webb, she br iefe d the other office rs who wer e involved in the raid re g arding“the location, the surrounding s, ever y thing.” (J.A. at 272.) As the offic ers ex i t ed their police va n, one of the m spotted W ilson observing them throug h the “south window of the house” in the “lower flat,” a nd aler ted the other

office rs, including McKa y ; McKa y testified t hat she he ard the office rs “y elling, he ’s in the window.” ( J .A. at 80-81, 272.) Upon e ntering the re sidence , the offic ers encounter ed W ilson and an older male . One of fice r pla c e d Wil so n u

p a g a ins t th e wa ll o f the din ingro om, ha nd c uf fe d h im, and

de ta ine d h im the re wh ile the sea rch w as t aking place . McKa y , who was r esponsible for se curing1200 Webb from the bac k of the pr e mis e s wh ile the oth e r o ff ic e rs c on du c te d a

n in iti a l se c ur ity

sw e e p o f t

he re sid e nc e , c a me int o th e a pa rtme nt o nc e it h a d b e e n s e c ur e d a nd joi ne d th e se arc h. She fo un d narc ot ics , whi le another office r found a

wea pon.No. 06-2616

4 On No ve mbe r 1 0, 20 04 , Wilso n w a s in dic te d o n o ne c ount o f p os se ssi on wi th i nte nt t o distribute more than five g rams of coca ine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1), a nd one count of beinga fe lon in possession of a firea rm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) . On Fe bruar y 7, 2005, Wil son moved to suppress the drug s and the fir ear m seized during the sear ch of his re sidence . The district court held a

n evidentiar

y hear ing on April 18, 2005, and continued the hear ing on Aug ust 18, 2005. The c ourt also held an in camera hear ing to e x amine the confide ntial informant on April 27, 2005. At the April 18, 2005 suppression hea ring , McKa

y acknow ledg ed that she e rre d in her aff idavit when she state d that 1200 Webb had “a single , common entra

nce.” (J.A. at 67.) She testified that she did not know why she had made that mistake, and that what she meant wa s that the location had a

“sing le common addr ess.” ( J .A. at 67, 74.) F our witnesses for the defe nse testified during the suppression hea ring s that on Aug ust 9, they had been wit h Wil son at an a ll-day party at the y ard be side 1200 Webb and never saw him leave to g o onto the front porc h. At the conc lusion of the August 18, 2005 suppression hear ing, the court denied Wil son’s motion to suppress from the bench. On

May 10 , 2 00 6, a

jur y c on vic te d Wil so n o f b oth c ounts in t

he ind ic tme nt. Wils on

tim e ly appea led his conviction. DI SCU SSIO N I. Stand ard of Review I n revie wing a district cour t’s suppression deter

mination, this Court review s findings of fac t fo r cl e ar er

ro r an d leg a l c on c lus ion s de novo

. United States v. Hudson , 405 F.3d 425, 431 ( 6th Cir.No. 06-2616

5 2005). When a district court de nies a motion to suppress, “w e co n s i d er the evidenc e in the lig ht most favor able to the g overnme nt.” United States v. Carter , 378 F.3d 584, 587 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (en banc) . “In revie wing the denial of the motion, w e m ay co n s i d er trial evidence in addition to the evidenc e admitted at the suppression hea ring .” Un ite d S

tat es v . H ar din , 539 F.3d 404, 417 ( 6th Cir. 2008). II. Ana lys is Wil son ar g u e s th a t t

h e w ar r an t t o s e ar c h 1 2 0 0 We b b o nA u g u s t 1 2 , 2 0 0 4 w a s d e fec tive, be c a us e it i na c c ur a te ly

state d th a t th e loc a tio n ha d a sin g le c omm on e ntr anc e . As a re su lt, he argue s, the wa rr ant f a ile d to de sc ri be wi th p art icu lar it y the l oc a tio n to be se arc he d, vio la tin g his F ourt h Amendment rig hts. This Court di sag ree s. The Four th A mendment prohibits the issuance of a sea rch w arr ant without probable c ause, and without “par

ticularly descr ibing the pla ce to be sear ched, a nd the p ersons or thing s to be

se arc he d. ” U. S. Con st. a me nd

. I V. “ An e rr or in de sc ri pti on do e s no t, howev er, a uto ma tic a lly invalidate a se arc h war

rant.” Un ite d S

tat es v . P e lay o-

Lan de ro , 285 F.3d 491, 496 ( 6th Cir. 2002).

“ Th e te st f

or de te rm ini ngwh e the r a

se arc h w arr ant d e sc ri be s th e pr e mis e s to be sear c he d w ith sufficie nt particular ity

is not whether the descr iption is technica lly acc urate in ever

y detail, but rathe r whether the de s cr i ption is sufficient to enable the executing of fice r to locate and identify the premises with re asonable eff ort, and whe th er t h er e is any rea sonable proba

bility that another premises mig ht be mistakenly sear ched.” Id. (interna l quotations and ci t ati ons omitt ed). Acc ording ly , “[c]ourts routinely have upheld war rants
. . . wher e one pa

rt of the de scription of theNo. 06-2616

6 premises to be se arc hed is i n ac cu ra t e, but the desc ription has other pa rts which identify

the place with particular ity .” Un ite d S tat es v . D ur

k , 149 F.3d 464, 466 ( 6th Cir. 1998). I n Du rk, the wa

rr ant no t on ly mis state d th e a dd re ss o f t he re sid e nc e to b e se arc he d, bu t a lso stated that house wa s located “ 3 houses to the east of Gra ndview,” w hen in fa ct the house w as three houses west of G randvie w. Id. at 465. The Court ne verthe less upheld the war rant be cause it gave

an ac curate phy sical descri p t ion of the house–includingits “unusual” metal stora g e shed–a nd beca use the a ffiant pa

rticipated in the se arc h aft er h av i n g just returned f rom investigating the location. Id. Simi larly , in United States v. Gahagan , 865 F. 2 d 1 4 9 0 (6th Cir. 1989), this Court upheld the validity of a war rant to se arc h 7609 Doug las L ake Road, despite the fa ct that the sea rch ult imate ly

too k p la c e a t 75 77 Do ug la s L a ke Roa d, a ne arb y c a bin ; the c a

bin be lon g e d to the same family that owned 7609 Doug las L ake Roa d. I n upholding the w ar ra nt, this C ourt relied on the

acc urac y of the a ffidavit ac company ing the war

rant, whic h desc ri b ed t h e cabin as par t of the premises to be se arc hed. Id. at 1497-98. This Court also consider ed “ t h e re l evant infor mation known by the executing office rs,” who knew that the near by cabin was the location to be se arc hed. Id. at 1498. I n Kn o tt v . Sullivan , 4 1 8 F. 3d 561 (6th Cir. 2005), this Court found a war rant to sea

rch a vehicle to be insufficiently particula r, despite the s ear ching office r having had prior per sonal contac t with the vehicle. H owever, i n that case , “virtually ever y descr iptor of the vehic le included in the

s ea rc h war

rant a nd acc ompanying a ffidavit wa s incorre ct[.] ” Id. a t 56 9. Th e a ff ida vit no t on ly misstated the vehicle’ s identification number a nd license plate, but the er roneous infor

mation in theNo. 06-2616

7 war rant a ccur ately

descr ibed the vehic le of another member of the s uspect’s family , and ther efor e could have rea sonably

led to a sea

rch of the wrongvehicle. Id. The c ircumstance s in this case more c losely rese mble those of Gahagan and Du rk, wher e the inacc urac y

in the war

rant wa s unlikely to lead to an unauthoriz ed or mistaken sear ch. Althoug h the

war rant incor rec tly stated that 1200 Webb has one c ommon en t ra n ce , it stated that the are a to be

sear ched w as the “ lower por tion of the dwelling .” (J.A. at 50.) The w arr ant also ac curately stated the a dd re ss o f t he loc a tio n, the c ro ss- str e e ts, and th e si de o f t he str e e t on

wh ic h 1 20 0 We bb is located. Mor eover , the fa ct that McKa y briefe d the offic ers in ad v ance reg ardingher pe rsonal knowledg e of 1200 W eb b an d then par ticipated in the sea

rch f urther r educe d the cha

nce that the wronglocation would be se arc hed; from he r re cent investig ation of t he residence and information from her informant, she kne w that the suspec ted sell er re t ri ev ed the drug s for sale from the r ight front door, a

nd that the rig ht door led to the downstairs r esidenc e. Wils on ha s n ot o ff

e re d a ny the or y a s to ho w the re c ou ld hav e been “ any re a so na ble probability ” that the of

fice rs following the war

rant would have mistakenly sear ched the wrong residenc e. Se e Pe lay o-

Lan de ro , 285 F.3d at 496. He contends that this Court m ust find the war rant ins uf fi c ien tly pa rt ic ula r b e c a us e it o nly

g a ve the po lic e a

“ [fi ft y pe rc e nt] c ha

nc e of su c c e ss i n

asce rtaining and identifying the proper flat.” App el l a n t ’s Br. at 21. This argument ignor es the

war rant’s e x plicit inst ruction to sear ch the “lower portion” of the premises. Wil son also argues that McKa y ’s par ticipation shoul d b e l es s o f a factor beca use she wa s secur ing the perimete r of the building and the ref

ore did not persona lly acc ompany the other office rs into the residenc e. Howe ver, even be fore taking her position, McKa y knew that the other officer s wer e properly focuse d on theNo. 06-2616

8 lower r esidenc e, bec ause she hear d them “y elling” as t hey wer e ex iting the police van that Wi lson

wa s w a tc hin g the m f

ro m th e low e r w ind ow. B y that po int , M c Ka

y wo uld have ha d n o r e a so n to believe that the office rs wer e dire cted at the wrongresidenc e. Acc ording ly , the war

rant wa s particular

enoug h to be valid under the Fourth Ame ndment and to prec lude suppression of the evidenc e found at Wi lson’s residenc e. Wils on ha s a lso ra ise d sever al a rgume nt pr o s e . This Court rejec ts them all, beca use the

rec ord is devoid of a

ny evidenc e to support Wils on’s alleg ations.

CO NC LU SION F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , th e jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

is AF F IR M ED

.