1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

vs. CRIMINAL NO. 14-306-KD

FREDERICK JERMAIN MILLER,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Frederick Miller’s Motion to 

Suppress or in the alternative Motion for Suppression Hearing. (Doc. 91). The 

Government filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 92). After careful consideration and 

for the reasons set forth below, the motion is due to be denied.

BACKGROUND

On October 30, 2014, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at 

defendant’s residence located at 265 Miller Rd., Burnt Corn, Alabama. (Doc. 91, p. 

14). The search warrant authorized seizure of marijuana and cocaine; firearms; U.S. 

currency; electronic devices that may contain drug contacts; and computer media, 

photos, or videos that may contain evidence of narcotics and dog fighting. (Doc. 91, p. 

14). The warrant further authorized searching any person, vehicle, or out buildings 

located on this property. (Doc. 91, p. 14). Ultimately, agents seized 12.8 pounds of 

marijuana and 188 grams of cocaine during the search. (Doc. 92, p. 1). In addition to 

Case 1:14-cr-00306-KD-N Document 93 Filed 07/20/15 Page 1 of 8
2

seizing the marijuana and cocaine, agents collected drug paraphernalia, several 

firearms, and $28,478.84 in cash. (Doc. 92, p. 1). Agents also observed a video 

surveillance system in the house, and found sixteen pit bulls (one deceased) and a 

dog-fighting pit on the property. (Doc. 92, p. 2). 

The defendant now moves the court “for an order suppressing any and all 

evidence that the government may seek to introduce against him at the trial of this 

action, which was obtained in the course of a search conducted pursuant to a search 

warrant on October 30, 2014, at ... 265 Miller Rd., Burnt Corn, Alabama (Monroe 

County).” (Doc. 91, p. 1). Alternatively, Miller requests an evidentiary hearing to 

examine the agents and officers involved in procuring the search warrant. (Doc. 91, 

p. 1). Miller argues the search warrant on its face is invalid, that the officers 

performed a no-knock search in violation of federal law, the search was without 

probable cause, the affidavit did not indicate it contained reliable information, and 

“[t]here is absolutely no evidence in the affidavit that exigent circumstance[s] 

existed.” (Doc. 91, p. 2). Thus, Miller asserts this Court should either suppress any 

evidence seized at the Miller Road address, or conduct an evidentiary hearing to 

determine whether the evidence should be suppressed. (Doc. 91, p. 3). 

In response, the Government argues the search warrant “was based on an 

ample showing of probable cause.” (Doc. 92, p. 3). The Agent who signed the 

application and affidavit for search warrant, Commander Alfred Carter, provided 

detailed information based on his personal observations, which included surveillance 

of Miller and his home. (Doc. 91, pp. 11 – 13). The Agent also met with a cooperating 

Case 1:14-cr-00306-KD-N Document 93 Filed 07/20/15 Page 2 of 8
3

individual, who provided additional information for the search warrant application. 

The cooperating individual purchased a substance from Miller at 265 Miller Road, 

and later handed a plastic bag containing marijuana to the Agent. (Doc. 91, pp. 11 –

12). Other agents conducted surveillance of the transaction, and independently 

corroborated the transaction. (Doc. 91, p. 12). The cooperating individual did not 

know the house was under surveillance during the transaction. (Doc. 91, p. 12). 

The Government further argues the affidavit provides a legitimate reason for 

requesting a no-knock warrant and permission to search the home at night. (Doc. 92, 

p. 5). The cooperating individual said they had observed Miller in possession of a 

handgun, and believed there were other weapons kept inside the residence. (Doc. 91, 

p. 12; Doc. 92, p. 5). The affidavit also states Agents had received information that 

Miller had an “audio/video recording surveillance system in place on the residence 

and curtilage.” (Doc. 91, p. 12). The Agent therefore requested a no-knock, nighttime

search warrant because narcotics are easily destroyed, the property to be searched 

had an audio/video security system, and weapons were believed to be present. (Doc. 

91, p. 13). Based on the sworn information presented in the affidavit, the Circuit 

Court of Monroe County, Alabama issued the search warrant. (Doc. 91, p. 14). The 

Government thus opposes Miller’s motion to suppress. 

ANALYSIS

Affidavits supporting search warrants are presumptively valid. Franks v. 

Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978). The Supreme Court instructs, however, that (1) 

“where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false 

Case 1:14-cr-00306-KD-N Document 93 Filed 07/20/15 Page 3 of 8
4

statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was 

included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit,” and (2) “if the allegedly false 

statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment 

requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request.” Id. at 155–56. And if, at 

the hearing, the defendant establishes the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard 

by a preponderance of the evidence, and “with the affidavit’s false material set to one 

side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the 

search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same 

extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.” Id. at 156.

As to the first Franks prong, the attack on the affidavit supporting the 

warrant must contain “allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for 

the truth,” specifically pointing out the portion of the warrant affidavit that is 

claimed to be false. Id. at 171. The allegations challenging the warrant affidavit

should be supported by an offer of proof. “Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable 

statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily 

explained.” United States v. Arbolaez, 450 F.3d 1283, 1293 (11th Cir. 2006) (citations 

omitted). Conclusory allegations of negligence or innocent mistakes are insufficient.

Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. As to the second Franks prong, to be entitled to relief, a 

defendant must show that the misrepresentations or omissions were material, which 

means that, absent the misrepresentations or omissions, probable cause would have 

been lacking. United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 987 (11th Cir. 2001).

Miller fails to satisfy the first Franks prong. Miller primarily argues that 

Case 1:14-cr-00306-KD-N Document 93 Filed 07/20/15 Page 4 of 8
5

there is no reason to believe the cooperating individuals provided credible 

information, and that “the lack of such representation was [a] deliberate or reckless 

omission of fact.” (Doc. 91, p. 5). The Court disagrees. First, the affidavit states that 

the cooperating individual provided accurate information to the Agent in the recent 

past. Second, agents conducted independent surveillance of the cooperating 

individual involved in a transaction with Miller. (Doc. 91, p. 11). The cooperating 

individual then “gave a debrief of events describing the drug transaction” which 

“exactly matched the events witnessed by Agents conducting surveillance at the time 

of the transaction.” (Doc. 91, p. 12). The affidavit provides sufficient information to 

assure the credibility of the cooperating individuals. 

Miller also argues the affidavit did not provide a sufficient basis for a 

no-knock search warrant. (Doc. 91, p. 5). Miller asserts a “concern for police safety 

must be based upon prior knowledge or direct observation that the subject of the 

search keeps weapons and that such person has a known propensity to use them.” 

(Doc. 91, p. 5). This argument is flawed, and it ignores the other reasons stated in 

the affidavit for requesting a no-knock search warrant, including the potential 

destruction of evidence. “In order to justify a ‘no-knock’ entry, the police must have a 

reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing their presence, under the 

particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the 

effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of 

evidence.” Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 (1997); see also United States v. 

Banks, 540 U.S. 31, 36 (2003) (noting that “[w]hen a warrant applicant gives 

Case 1:14-cr-00306-KD-N Document 93 Filed 07/20/15 Page 5 of 8
6

reasonable grounds to expect futility or to suspect that one or another such exigency 

already exists or will arise instantly upon knocking, a magistrate judge is acting 

within the Constitution to authorize a ‘no-knock’ entry”). The showing an officer 

must make to receive a “no-knock” warrant “is not high.” Richards, 520 U.S. at 394. 

In this case, the affidavit in support of the search warrant describes why the 

officers requested a no-knock search warrant. Miller had been seen with a handgun, 

and was suspected of having other guns within the house. The house to be searched 

contained surveillance cameras and monitors that provided an early warning to 

people located inside the house. Cocaine and marijuana are controlled substances 

that are easily destroyed. Based on that evidence, the judge who issued the 

“no-knock” warrant was well within his discretion to conclude that knocking either 

might be dangerous or inhibit the effective investigation of this drug crime by 

allowing for the destruction of contraband evidence. See Richards, 520 U.S. at 394.

Miller also challenges the affidavit on the grounds that it is silent “as to the 

date, time and place” the Agent met with the cooperating individuals. (Doc. 91, p. 8). 

Miller further contends the affidavit relies “solely upon the opinion of Agent Alfred 

Carter that a no-knock search warrant was necessary,” (Doc. 91, p. 9) and generally 

“lacks objective evidence to establish probable cause to believe that illegal narcotics 

and firearms were possessed by the Defendant inside the residence at 265 Miller 

Road in Burnt Corn, Alabama.” (Doc. 91, p. 10). The evaluation of a search warrant 

based upon informant information involves an inquiry into the “totality of 

circumstances” presented in the supporting affidavit. United States v. Figueroa, 720 

Case 1:14-cr-00306-KD-N Document 93 Filed 07/20/15 Page 6 of 8
7

F.2d 1239, 1243 (11th Cir. 1983). Given the traditional deference to a magistrate’s 

decision that probable cause exists, the warrant will be upheld on review so long as 

the magistrate had a “substantial basis” for concluding that the search would reveal 

evidence of crime. Id., 720 F.2d at 1243-44 (citations omitted).

Based on this record, there is a “substantial basis” for the Circuit Court of 

Monroe County to reach such a conclusion. As previously stated, the Agent attested

to the cooperating individual’s reliability, and others independently surveyed the 

cooperating individual as they engaged in a transaction with Miller. After the 

transaction occurred, the cooperating individual handed the Agent a plastic bag 

containing marijuana. (Doc. 91, p. 12). On a separate occasion, the Agent personally 

observed Miller, Laquinton Miller, and Gecoby Penn consuming marijuana inside 

the garage. (Doc. 91, p. 12). The Agent believes he observed other illicit transactions 

with unidentified individuals during this time. (Doc. 91, p. 12). Additionally, the 

Agent had information concerning an audio/video surveillance system at the 

residence, and the likely presence of weapons. The totality of the circumstances 

supports the issuance of a warrant in this case. 

Because Miller failed to satisfy the first Franks prong, and the Court 

otherwise finds the totality of the circumstances described in the affidavit supports 

the issuance of the warrant, the Court concludes a suppression hearing is

unnecessary. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress or in the Alternative Motion for 

Case 1:14-cr-00306-KD-N Document 93 Filed 07/20/15 Page 7 of 8
8

Suppression Hearing is DENIED. (Doc. 91). 

DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of July, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cr-00306-KD-N Document 93 Filed 07/20/15 Page 8 of 8