UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATED OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 09-20022

v. Honorable Thomas L. Ludington

DELANI MOSI DEGRATE,

Defendant.

______________________________________ /

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

On January 15, 2009, law enforcement sought and obtained a warrant that authorized a

search of a residence located at 1654 Cornelia Street in Saginaw, Michigan (“Cornelia residence”).

The affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant alleged that information obtained from a

confidential informant (“CI”) was reliable because the CI previously provided information to law

enforcement officials and the investigators corroborated the information by observing a controlled

purchase of crack cocaine from Defendant Delani Mosi Degrate. The ensuing search yielded 133.38

grams of cocaine base, approximately 1.3 kilograms of marijuana, a semi-automatic rifle, more than

$1,500.00 in cash, and items associated with narcotics. 

On January 21, 2009, the grand jury indicted Defendant of possessing cocaine base with the

intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), possessing a firearm in furtherance of

a drug-trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and being a felon in the possession of

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e).

On April 14, 2009, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of

the residence, arguing that the affidavit supporting the search warrant did not establish probable

cause because the representation that the CI provided credible information in the past did not satisfy

1:09-cr-20022-TLL-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 98
-2-

the requirement for verification of the reliability of the CI. The government asserts that the affidavit

contains sufficient corroboration for the CI’s information to sustain probable cause. On June 29,

2009, the parties advanced oral argument. For the reasons stated below, the Court will DENY the

motion to suppress. 

I

The warrant in question authorized a police search of the Cornelia residence on the suspicion

that controlled substances and related items were present. The affidavit in support of the warrant

established probable cause by including a description of the “controlled” purchase accomplished by

the CI. It described the transaction, in relevant part, as follows:

B) Within the last 48 hours, a confidential informant (hereafter “CI”), made a

controlled purchase of a quantity of crack cocaine from within the above described

residence. The CI was first searched for the presence of controlled substances and

US currency with none being found. The CI was provided with a quantity of prerecorded BAYANET drug buy funds and was surveilled to the address. The CI was

seen to enter the location, remain for a short period of time and then exit. The CI

met with investigators at a pre-determined location and turned over the suspected

crack cocaine to D. Tpr. Larrison. The substance field tested positive for the

presence of crack cocaine. The CI stated that the cocaine had been purchased from

a black male approximately 30 to 35 years old that goes by the name of “Doonie.”

The CI advised that he she has previously seen an assault type rifle in the living room

of the residence. The CI further stated that he she observed the same rifle in the

living room and “Doonie” had a semiautomatic pistol on his person the previous

evening. Prior to leaving the residence the CI was told by suspect “Doonie” that

there was more crack cocaine available and to come back if the CI needed more

crack cocaine.

* * * 

E) The CI has provided this information based upon his personal knowledge.

Further, the CI is known to be reliable and the information provided because the CI

has previously provided information to law enforcement officers regarding persons

and places involved in the sale or distribution of illegal controlled substances and has

engaged in activities which have resulted in the recovery of controlled substances.

Further, the information provided by the CI has been independently verified by the

investigating officers to the extent possible.

1:09-cr-20022-TLL-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 99
-3-

Dkt. # 11-3 at 3-4. The affidavit also reflected the affiant having connected Defendant to the

Cornelia residence by a check of the Saginaw Area GIS Authority. The affidavit also reflected the

affiant’s verification of the Defendant’s past convictions for narcotics-related offenses through a

criminal history check. Id. After review of the affidavit, the 70th District Court in Saginaw,

Michigan authorized a warrant. 

II

The Fourth Amendment provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,

supported by Oath or affirmation . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Supreme Court has recognized

that “probable cause is a fluid concept – turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular

factual contexts – not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules” and adopted the

“totality of the circumstances” test. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230-32 (1983). An affidavit in

support of a warrant must provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the

existence of probable cause. Id. at 239. “A grudging or negative attitude by reviewing courts toward

warrants, is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s strong preference for searches conducted

pursuant to a warrant courts should not invalidate . . . warrants by interpreting affidavits in a

hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense, manner.” Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 (quoting United States

v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108-09 (1965)). Thus, a court should show “great deference” to a

magistrate’s probable cause determination. Id.

A confidential informant’s statements may establish probable cause if the affiant describes

“with some detail” the informant’s past reliability. United States v. Jackson, 470 F.3d 299, 307 (6th

Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. McCraven, 401 F.3d 693, 697 (6th Cir. 2005) (quoting United

States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir. 2000))). Likewise, additional investigation corroborating

1:09-cr-20022-TLL-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 100
-4-

the informant’s allegations may also independently support a finding of probable cause. Id. Details

of a controlled purchase observed by law enforcement is sufficient corroboration. United States v.

Coffee, 434 F.3d 887, 894-95 (6th Cir. 2006). In Coffee, officers corroborated the informant’s

allegation of a narcotics purchase from the defendant by taking the following measures: controlling

and observing the purchase, searching the informant for money or contraband, providing the

informant with pre-recorded funds, observing the informant enter and exit the defendant’s house,

and observing and testing the crack cocaine purchased from defendant. Id. at 895. 

Here, the affidavit describes the CI’s past assistance leading to the confiscation of controlled

substances. Defendant argues this statement was vague and did not establish the CI’s credibility or

reliability. Defendant, however, disregards the affiant’s investigative efforts. Just as in Coffee, law

enforcement corroborated the informant’s statements by having the CI participate in a controlled

purchase, which the investigators observed. Indeed, the affidavit described officers searching the

CI, providing the CI with a pre-recorded funds, observing the CI arrive and depart from the Cornelia

residence, and testing the substance to verify that is was indeed cocaine base. Such efforts

sufficiently corroborated the CI’s statements and the affidavit adequately demonstrated probable

cause.

Defendant offers three arguments that are unpersuasive in this circumstance. First,

Defendant contends that United States v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372 (6th Cir. 1996) and United States

v. Bryant, 951 F.Supp. 674 (E.D. Mich. 1997) demonstrate that the affidavit did not establish

probable cause. Each is distinguishable from the instant matter. In Weaver, the affiant’s

corroborative efforts only confirmed innocuous facts, e.g., the address or external appearance of the

residence. Id. at 1376. In fact, had the affidavit included a description of a “controlled purchase

1:09-cr-20022-TLL-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 101
-5-

made with officers viewing,” the affidavit would have established probable cause. Id. at 1377.

Likewise, the court in Bryant was confronted with a circumstance where officers did not accomplish

“meaningful corroboration.” Id. at 679. Rather, further investigation only confirmed that the

defendant was present at the residence. Id. In both cases, attempts to corroborate the informant’s

statements of unlawful conduct were superficial. In the present case, corroborative efforts were

thorough and adequately buttressed the CI’s statements. 

Next, Defendant argues that the statement that the controlled purchase occurred “[w]ithin

the last 48 hours” was vague and did not reasonably demonstrate when the controlled purchase

occurred. The Court disagrees as warrants are to be interpreted in a “commonsense manner,” not

in a “hypertechnical” manner. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236. A fair reading of the affidavit indicates that

the controlled purchase occurred within forty-eight hours of the application for the warrant.

Finally, Defendant argues that a field test is untrustworthy and does not support a finding of

probable cause. Defendant has not offered any authority to support the proposition that a field test

confirming a narcotic substance can not be included in an affidavit. In contrast, the court in Coffee

noted that a field test bolstered a finding of probable cause. Id. at 895. Here, it was appropriate for

the magistrate to consider the field test when finding probable cause.

Ultimately, the investigators’ corroborative efforts sufficiently verified the CI’s statements.

Thus, the Court will deny the motion to suppress. 

III

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to suppress [Dkt. # 11] is DENIED.

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 1, 2009

1:09-cr-20022-TLL-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 102
-6-

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on July 1, 2009.

s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

TRACY A. JACOBS

1:09-cr-20022-TLL-CEB Doc # 27 Filed 07/01/09 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 103