The Honor able William O. Be rtelsman, United States District J udg e for the E astern D istrict * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

File Na me: 10a0794n.06 No. 09-5703 UN I TE D ST AT ES C OU RT O F APP EA L S F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA : : Pla int if

f- Ap pe lla nt, : : ON APPEALFROM THE v. : UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT : FOR THE MI DDL E DI STRI CT OF CHARL ES E. RI CE : TENNESSEE : Def endant- Appellee

. : OPI NI ON

BEFORE: SUTTON and GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; BERTELS MAN, D istrictJudge. *

P ER CURIAM : Plaintiff/Appellant, the United States of Ame rica , appea ls the district court’s suppre ssion of the fr uits of the sear ch of the residenc e of D efe ndant/Appellee , Charles Rice, pur suant to a

sear ch wa rra nt. For the re asons stated be low, we RE VE RSE

. I. On September

17, 2008, a law e nforc ement off icer with the Thirteenth J udicial District Drug Task F orce in the State o f Tennessee submitted an a ffidavit in support of a reque st for a se arc h

war rant to a state court judg e. The sear ch wa rra nt reque st was for the residenc e of theNo. 09-5703

United States v. Rice

2 De fe nd ant/Ap pe lle e , Ch arl e s Ri c e . Th e re le va nt por tio n of the law en fo rc e me nt o ff ic e r’ s a ff ida vit

s t at edt h e f

o l l o wi n g: On September

16, 2008 Ag ents with the 13th J udicial District DrugTask [Forc e] (JDTF) we re contac ted by a confide ntial sour ce reg arding activity by Charles Rice. Ag ents from the 13th J DTF met with the confidential source at Att orney Shawn Fr y ’s office , with Attorney

Fr y p re s en t during the meeting . The c onfidential sourc e advised a g ents that Charles Rice was on his way home to 480 Rice Ba

rnes L ane f

rom Calif o r n ia tr a n s p o r ti n g s e v e r a l p o u

n d s of methamphe tamine. The c onfidential sourc e a dv ise d a g e nts that he wo uld be dr ivi nga

wh ite To y ota

4 d oo r M a tr ix be lon g ingto his g irlfriend J ulie Stins on. Ag ent Randolph verif ied throug h a citizen informant and oth e r l aw e nf

or c e me nt p e rsonn el th at Julie Stin so n is kn ow n to be a g ir lf ri e nd to Cha rl e s Ri c e . A g e nt R and olp h le arn e d thro ug h th is c on fi de nti a l so urce th at hi s information was c oming to him from an unidentified citizen informant who wa s too a fr a id t o ta lk w ithlaw e nfo rcem ent ab ou t Ch arl e s Ri c e . A g e nt R and olp h d id convince the citizen informant to talk with him long enoug h t o s ay t h at when Mr. Ric e arr ive s h ome fro m hi s tr ips to C a lif or nia he hid e s th e me tha

mph e tamin e [] in flower pots around the residenc e. The confidential s ource advised Age nts that Mr. Ric e sto r e d

s tol e n mo tor c y c le s and

mot or c y c le pa

rt s in an o utb uil din g on

the pr op e rt

y at 480 Rice Ba

rnes L ane. Ag ents wer e also infor med that it was a c ommon practice for Mr. Rice to bury m o n ey and guns on his property . The c onfidential sourc e a dv ise d a g e nts that Mr

. Ric e wo uld have a br ig ht ye llo w o lde r m od e l Ch e vy I mpa la on the pr op e rt

y fo r h is p e rs on a l us e . T he c on fi de nti a l so ur c e pr ov ide d a g e nts wi th a hand draw n map of the property , the home and the outbuildings on the prope rty at 480 Rice B arne s L ane. When a g ents left Attorney Fr y ’s offic e they

ran a criminal history

on Charles E. Rice

. Th e c ri min a l hi sto ry

re ve a le d to the a g e nts that Mr. Ric e ha s a long his tor y of arr e st, leadingas fa

r bac k as 1970, in California. The history also shows that Mr. Rice ha s pr ior arr e st[s] fo r p os se ssi on

of sc he du le I Iand

sc he du le VI

c on tr oll e d s ub sta

nc e s. The a rre st recor ds also show that Mr. Rice ha s been char g ed with carry ing w eapons while beingin poss es s ion of controlled substanc es and ha s been c harg ed on more than one oc casion with beingin possession of an explosive device. On S eptember 17, 2008 ag ents from the 13th J DTF drove to 480 Rice B arne s L ane. Ag ents hoped to speak with neig hbors, but found no one at hom e. Ag ents had be en advised from other law enfor ceme nt that there ha d been nume rous complaints made to t he Whit e County She ri ff

’s De pa rtme nt c on c e rn ingMr . Ri c e , f ro m hi s n e ig hb or s. Whil e ag ents wer e close to Mr. Rice’s re sidence they observe d a white Toyota 4 door Matrix and a b ri ght y ellow older mode l Chevy I mpala. Ag ents also found that theNo. 09-5703

United States v. Rice

3 hand dr awn map pr ovided to them from the c onfidential informa nt was ac curate. When ag ents arr ived bac k at the off ice a vehicle reg istration que ry was pe rfor

med on Mr . Ri c e and Julie Stin so n. Ag e nts fo un d th a t Julie Stin so n h a s a 20 04 wh ite To y ota Matrix reg istered t o h er and that Charle s Rice has a 1966 Chevy

I mpala re g istered to h im. On September

17, 2008 Ag ents met with a confidential informant provided to them fr o m o th e r la

w e n f o r c e me n t p e r s o n n e l. T h is c o n f id e n ti a l in f

o r ma n t h a s provided cre dible and re liable information to law e nforc ement in the past. This confide ntial informant has pr ovided information to la w enfor ceme nt that has led to the ar rest and c on vic tio n o f d

ru g de fe nd ants on at le a st e ig ht ( 8) se pa ra te oc c a sio ns . T his confide ntial informant advised a g ents that within the last y ear to y ear and a ha lf he provided iodine to Charle s Rice to cook methamphe tamine. Confidential informant t old ag ents that in exchang e for the iodine Mr. Rice w ould give him money and m et h am p h et am i n e. T h e c o n fi d en t i al i n fo rm an tad v i s edage n t s t h at t h i s ex c h an ge too k p lac e a t le a st t e n ( 10 ) t ime s. Th is c on fi de nti a l in fo rm ant a lso a dv ise d a g e nts that w he n M r. Ric e too k th e tr ip t o Ca lif or nia he wou ld h a ve the wh ite To y ota Matr ix, owne d b y

Julie Stin so n, se rv ic e d in Coo ke vil le and

he wo uld drive it t o California. (R.18-2). The state court judge signed the sear ch warra nt and it was e x ecute d the following day on September 18, 2008. The sea rch of Rice’s home y

ielded quantities of methamphetamine and ma rijuana a s well as assorted dr

ug para pherna lia. (R.18-1). The sear ch also y ielded a loa ded pistol in Ri ce’ s bedroom and seve ral other

firea rms located thr oug hout Rice’s prope rty . ( Id. ). As a re sult, Ri ce w as indicted on one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. (R.1). Rice moved to suppr ess the evidenc e seized from the sea rch of his residenc e. (R.18). The district c ourt g rante d Rice’s motion to suppress, holding that the sear ch wa rra nt lacked probable cause and that the g ood faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply . (R.23). On J une 5, 2009, the United States f iled a timely

notice of a

ppeal. ( R.32).No. 09-5703

United States v. Rice

4 II. This court re views the district cour t’s decision on a motion to suppress using a mix ed standard of

revie w. Finding s of fa ct ar e re viewed f or cle ar e rror

and conc lusions of law are revie wed de novo. United States v. Higgins , 557 F.3d 381, 389 ( 6th Cir. 2009). Where the district court is itself a re viewing court, this court owe s the district court’s c onclusions no particula r def ere nce. United States v. King , 227 F.3d 732, 739 ( 6th Cir. 2000); United States v. W eave r , 9 9 F .3 d 1 37 2, 13 76 (6 th C ir . 1 99 6) ; United States v. Leak e , 9 98 F .2 d 1 35 9, 13 62 (6 th Cir. 1993). A. On appe al, the g overnme nt advanc es two ar g uments. First, the g overnme nt argues that the

c ir c ums tanc e s c on ta ine d in the a ff ida vit fo r t he se arc h w arr ant i n q

ue st io n d id i n f

a c t c on sti tut e probable cause . Second, it argues t hat t he dis trict court incorrec tly reje cted the g ood faith exception under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (19 8 4 ). Be cause we f ind merit in appellant’s sec ond argument, we will not addre ss the questi on of whether the sear ch wa rra nt lacked pr obable c ause. See Un ite d S tat es v . V an Sh utte rs , 1 63 F .3 d 3 31 , 3 37 -3 8 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 8) ; United States v. Sav oca , 761 F.2d 292, 294 ( 6th Cir. 1985). B. I n United States v. Leon , the Supreme Court of ficially rec og nized the good f aith exception to the exclusionary

rule, whic h require s suppression of all ev i d ence obtained in violation of the F ourt h A me ndme nt. 46 8 U. S. 89 7. I n do ing so , the Sup re me Cou rt c are fu lly we ig he d th e be ne fi ts and detr iments of rec og nizi ng a g ood faith exception to the e x clusionary rule. “ [O] ur eva luation ofNo. 09-5703

United States v. Rice

5 the costs and be nefits of suppressing r eliable phy sical evide nce se ized by office rs re asonably

relying

on a warra

nt issued by a detached and neutral mag istrate leads to the conclusion that such e vidence should be admissible in the prosec ution's c ase in c hief.” Id. at 913. Howeve r, the Supreme Court also rec og nized that the good f aith exception was not without limit s. Ba sed on the holding of Leon , we have re cog nized four spec ific instance s in which the g ood f a i t h e x c e p t i o nw o u l d

n o ta p p l y: (1) whe re the issuing mag istrate wa s misled by information in an af fidavit that the a ff iant k ne w w a s f

a lse or wo uld have kn ow n w as fal se exce pt f or his re c kle ss disreg ard f

or th e tr uth ; ( 2) whe re the issuing mag istrate wholly abandone d his judicial role a n d failed to a ct in a neutr al and de tache d fashion, ser ving me rely

as a r ubber sta mp f or the po lic e ; ( 3) wh e re the a ff ida vit wa s no thi ng mor e tha

n a “ ba re bo ne s” aff idavit that did not pr ovide the mag istrate with a substantial ba sis for deter mining the exist ence of proba

b l e ca u s e, or w here the af fidavit was so lac king in indicia of probable cause as to rende r off icial belief in its ex istence e ntirely unrea sonable; and (4 ) w here th e off

ice r' s r e lia

nc e on the wa rr ant w a s n ot i n g oo d f

a ithor ob je c tiv e ly re a so na ble , s uc h a s w he re the wa rr ant i s f a c ia lly de fi c ie nt. Un ite d S tat es v . H igg ins , 5 5 7 F. 3 d 3 8 1 , 3 9 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 9 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Rice , 478 F.3d 70 4, 71 1 ( 6th

Cir . 200 7) ). Th e dis tr ic t cou rt he re in r e lie d o n th e fo ur

th e xce pti on

to t he g oo d f a ith

ru le a s th e ba sis to g ra

nt R ic e ’s mot ion

to s up pr e ss. I n doing so, the district c ourt ruled that “no rea sonably trained office r could have believed the sea rch to be leg al, despite the fac t that a judge had issued a warra nt.” (R.23 at 9). The district
court re jected the g ood faith ex ception st ating that there was a “lac k of any temporal or loc ational nexus betwe en the information provide d by the conf idential informant and the subsequent sea rch.” ( Id. ). This is incorre ct.No. 09-5703

United States v. Rice

I odine is a precursor

materia l used in manufac turing methamphetamine. See U.S. Drug 1 Enforc ement Administration clande stine laborator y in dicators list at htt p:/ /w ww .ju sti c e .g ov /de a/c on c e rn /c land e sti ne _in dic a tor s. htm l.

6 Th e a ff ida vit that su pp or te d th e se arc h w arr ant s pe c if ic a lly state d th a t a

c iti z e n i n f o r m a nt tol d police that “w hen Mr. Rice arr ives home from his trips to Ca lifornia he hides the methamphetamines [si c] in flower pots ar ound the re sidence .” (R.18-2 at 2). Th e a ff ida vit a lso state d th a t a

se pa ra te c on fi de nti a l so ur c e a dv is ed po lice that “ it w a s a

common prac tice for Mr. R ice to bury money and guns on his property .” ( Id. ). Th e a ff

ida vit a lso inc lud e d in fo rm a tio n f

ro m a thi rd c on fi de nti a l inf

or mant, wh o tol d p oli c e that, at le a st t e n ti me s in an eig hteen- month period prec eding the sear ch war rant, he had provided Charles Rice w ith iodine in exchang e for

money and methamphe tamine. ( Id. ). 1 Multipl e dec isions of this court have he ld that “a ne x us betwee n the place to be sea rche d and the item to be seized may sometimes be infer

red.” Hi gg ins , 557 F.3d at 391 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. W

illiams , 544 F.3d 683, 686 ( 6th Cir. 2008)). I n a re cent line o f cases, we have held that a n issuing judg e may

infer that drug t ra ff i ck er s u s e th ei r ho m es t o s t o re dru gs an d o t h erwi s e f u rt h er t h ei r d ru g t ra ff

i ck i n g. See, e .g. , United States v. Miggins , 3 02 F .3 d 3 84 , 3 93 -9 4 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 2) ; se e als o United States v. Gunte r , 266 Fe d

. App’x 415, 419 (6th Cir. 2008) (unpublished decision) ( noting that our prec edents establish that there is a nexus between a drug deale r' s criminal ac t i v i t y

and the de aler ' s residenc e whe n there is reliable e vidence connec ting the c riminal activity to the residenc e) . . . . United States v. W

illiams, 544 F.3d 683, 687 ( 6th Cir. 2008). Ac c or d U n ite d S ta te s v. Martinez , No.95-3962, 19 9 7 W L 26461, at *2 (6th Cir. J an.22, 1997) ; United States v. D avidson , 936 F.2d 856, 860 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Rose nbarger , 536 F.2d 715, 719 ( 6th Cir. 1976).No. 09-5703

United States v. Rice

7 Such an i n f

e r e n c e is r e a s o n a

b le b e c a u s e “ p r o b a

b le c a u s e r e qu ir e s o n ly a p r o b a b il it y or

subs tan ti al chan ce of cri mi nal act iv it y , no t an actual sh owi ng of su ch act iv it y ." Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 244 n.13 (1983). Her e, the sear ch war rant aff idavit contained infor

mation indicating that Rice u s e d

h is r e s id e n c e a s a

p la c e to h id e th e dr

u g s h e w a s s u s p e c te d

o f p o s s e s s in g an d

/or manufa cturing . This information rende rs the law e nforc ement off icer ’s re liance u p o n the sea rch

war rant objec tively

rea sonable. “ [T] his court has noted that rea so n ably well traine d office rs may inf e r a n e xus b e tw e e n a

pla c e to b e se arc he d a

nd ite ms s ou g ht, e ve n w he n th e a ff ida vit fa ils to establish probable cause .” United States v. Sne ed , 385 Fe d. App’x 551, 559-60 (6th Cir. 2010). On multiple occasions, thi s court ha s held that the Leon g oo d f a ithe xce pti on

wa s a pp lic a ble wher e the se arc h war

rant wa s later de termined to be inva lid. See U nited States v. W

ashington, 380 F.3d 236, 242 ( 6th Cir. 2004) ; United States v. Carpente r , 360 F.3d 591, 595-97 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc) ; U nit e d S tates v . V an Sh utte rs , 163 F.3d at 336-38 ; Un ite d S tates v . S c hu ltz , 1 4 F .3 d 1 09 3 ( 6th Cir. 1994) ; United States v. Sav oca , 761 F.2d 292 (6th Cir. 1985). There fore , without deciding the question, even if the sear ch wa rra nt in the in s tant case was invalid, the Leon g ood faith exception

w o u l d s t i l l a p p l y. The fa ct that an a ffidavit fails to establish probable cause is not determinative of w hether that aff idavit could support a re asonable belief in the va lidity of the sea

rch w arr ant for pur

poses of the exclusionary

rule. United States v. Mc Phearson , 469 F .3 d 518 , 526 (6 th Cir . 200 6)

. Th e re a so n is that the standar d for a

pply ing the g ood faith exception of Leon is lower than that which is require d to find probable c ause.No. 09-5703

United States v. Rice

8 A p oli c e of

fi c e r’ s o bje c tiv e ly

re a so na ble re lia nc e on a sig ne d s e arc h w arr ant r e qu ir e s “ a le ss demandingshowing ” than the “substantial basis” threshold re quired for probable cause . Hi

gg ins , 557 F.3d at 391 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Carpenter , 3 6 0 F

. 3 d a t5 9 5 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( e nb an c ) )

. “ If the inq uir ie s w e re ide nti c a l, t

he pr ob a ble c a us e de te rm inatio n woul d su bs ume the g oo d f a ith exception.” McPhe arson , 4 6 9 F. 3 d at 5 2 6 (c i t i n g United States v. Laughton , 4 09 F .3 d 744 , 7 49 (6 th Cir. 2005)). Her e, the affidavit wa s not so lacking in information that a re asonable law enf orce ment office r’s re liance upon it wa s per se unrea sonable. The aff idavit c ontained information from sever al differ ent source s indicating a likelihood of Rice’ s involvement in drug traff icking . At l ea s t one

so ur c e c onne c te d th e a lle g e d un lawf ul a c tiv ity to the re sid e nc e that wa s e ve ntu a lly se arc he d. Thus , while the aff

idavit a rg uably may

have be en def

icient, the g ood faith exception under Leon saves the

sear ch, and the fruits there of, fr om application of the e x clusionary rule. REVERSED.