NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0559n.06 No. 09-5721 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. ROBERT ERNEST SI L VEY, De fe nd a nt- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the Ea stern District of Ke ntucky

B e fo re : B OG GS, SI L ER, a nd MO OR E, Cir c uit

Judg e s. BO GGS, Circuit J udg e. After secur ing a

war rant fr om a state mag istrate, law e nforc ement

a g e nts se arc he d Ro be rt

Silv e y ’s ho me , unc ov e ri ngnu me ro us fi re a rm s a nd mari jua na pla nts . In th is appea l, Silvey challeng es the district c ourt’s denial of his motion to suppr ess the evide nce g ather ed during the sea

rch. B eca use the ag ents conducting the sea rch r elied on the wa

rra nt in good f

aith, we aff irm the judg ment of the district cour t. See U nited States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). I I n Marc h 20 08 , a

n a no ny mou s ti ps te r c on ta c te d th e B uf fa lo T ra c e Re g ion a l N a rc oti c s T a sk F o r c e ( t h e “ B T R

N T F ” ) a n d

i n d i c a t e d t h a ta

V i e t n a m v e t e r a n l i v i n g s o m e w h e r e i n F l e m i n g C o u n t y, Kentucky was c ultivating marijuana inside his house

. The tipster a lso indicated that the unidentified veter an wa s in possession of automatic wea pons. Whil e the tipster declined to divulge the ve tera n’s name, the tipster did r evea l that the veter an re sided in a new ly built home protected by

a locke d g ate. Ac c or din g to t

he tip ste r, the g a te wa s p ro ba bly mon ito re d b y

vid e o c a me ra s.No. 09-5721

United States v. Robert E. Silvey

- 2 - Ba sed on this information, age nts opened an investig ation. There was initially littl e for them to go on, but the inve stigat i o n gai n ed s team on Oc tober 23, 2008, whe n the B TRNTF r ece ived a second a nony mous tip. This time, the tipster ide ntified the my sterious marijuana g rowe r as Rober

t Silvey , a convicted fe lon. Resear ch disclosed that Silvey lived at 2665 US 68, Ewing , Kentucky , an addre ss located in F leming County

. Throug h surveillance of Silvey ’s prope rty , ag ents deter mined that hi s h ou se wa s th e on ly dw e lli ngsit

uate d at th e e nd

of a 30 0- y a rd dr ive wa y . Inte rv ie ws wi th neig hbors re veale d that Silvey “ofte n ‘terr orized’ some of [them] by firing what they believed w ere automatic we apons.” On Octobe r 27, 2008, ag ents collec ted a pa ir of gar bag e bags that had been l eft outside the entra nce to Silvey ’s prope rty . I ns i d e the g arba g e bag s, ag ents found “f resh g ree n marijuana ”

c l i p p i n g s , w h i c h h a d b e e n t r i m m e d a w a y f r o m l i v e p l a n t s t o e n c o u r a g e a d d i t i o n a l g r o w t h

. In

a d d i t i o nt o t h e t r i m m i n g s , t h e b a g s c o n t a i n e d a p h a r m a c y r e c e i p t b e a r i n g t h e n a m e o f T e r e s a S i l v e y, Robert Silvey ’s wife

. L ater t h at d ay , age n ts sought a w arr ant to sear ch Silvey ’s re sidence . The a ffidavit for the

wa rr an twa s ex ec u t ed b y Age n t Ha rm o n an d l i s t edt h e p l ac e t o b e s ea rc h edas t h e “ o n l y dwe l l i n g” located a t “2665 US 68, Ewing , Fleming County , Kentucky .” To e stablish pro bable c ause, the

a ff ida vit se t f or th t he fo llo wi ngfa c ts: [A] ffiant rec eived information from

. . . Bill Bog g s that he had r ece ived information that Robert Silvey

had bee n g rowing marijuana and had a

utomatic wea

pons. . . . A criminal re cords check w as made on Robert Silvey . We discovere d Robert Silvey had a prior felony conviction befor e the Mason Circuit Court. W e i n t erviewed neig hbors and discove red that there ha d been gun fire that the neig hbors believe d would be consistent with automatic we apons. On Oc tober 27, 2008, at 1:50 p.m., we seized two trash bag s from the rig ht-of-w ay outside the lane le ading to 2665 US 68.No. 09-5721

United States v. Robert E. Silvey

Nothing in the r ecor d indicates that a g ents furnished the mag istrate with any information 1 be y on d w hat w a s in

the a ff ida vit

. - 3 - Upon g oing thr oug h the trash ba g s w e discove red w hat appe are d to be fre sh g ree n marijuana

. Ba sed upon my training and ex perie nce, the fre sh g ree n marijuana found wo uld be c on sis te nt w iththe g ro omi ng of c ult ivate d ma

ri jua na to e nh a nc e the bu ds , weig ht and value of

mari j u an a. There was a

pharma cy

rec eipt in the trash that sh ow e d T e r e s a

S i l v e y h a d g o t t e n a p r e s c r i p t i o n f

i l l e d

. T e r e s a

S i l v e y i s t h e s po us e o f R o b e rt S i l v e y. Notably , the af

fidavit failed to state that Silvey resided at 2665 U.S. 68. After revie wing the information in the af fidavit, a F leming County District J udg e is sued a

war rant to sea

rch Silvey ’s residenc e. When a g ents arr ived to execute the wa rra nt, Sil vey was the 1

on ly pe rs on the y fo un d. Ag e nts imm e diate ly too k him to the fl oo r, ha nd c uf fe d h im, and

pla c e d h im

on a c ou c h. Af

te r h e wa s se a te d, on e of

the a g e nts re a d h im h is Miranda rig hts. Meanw hile, other ag ents beg an sea

rchinghis home, uncover ing an “ac tive marijuana g row in [his] baseme nt.” The home also conta ined a ve ritable a rmory ’s worth o f fire arms—a subma chine gun, two loaded ha nd g un s, thr e e ri fl e s ( on e of wh ic h w a s si le nc e d) , a

nd fi ve oth e rs of

va ri ou s ty pe s. During the sea

rch, A g ent Tim Fe ag an questioned Silvey in the baseme nt. At the start of the questioning, w hich was ta pe-r ecor ded and lasted approximately 45 minutes to an hour, Silvey was

a sk e d if he ha d b e e n a dv ise d o f his ri g hts

. He ans we re d in the a ff ir ma tiv e and

pr oc e e de d to c on fe ss that he g re w the mari

jua na in t he ho us e “ fo r h is o wn

us e ” and that “ he ma de te a ou t of [it].” He a lso indicated that the f

irea rms wer e his and re counted “ wher e [they ] came fr om.” Th e fo llo wi ngda

y , a ft e r Silv e y

wa s r e le a se d o n b on d, a

nu mbe r o f a g e nts we nt t o h is h ome to conduct a se cond intervie w. Afte r ag ents knocke d at the door, Silvey let t h em i n , an d they

satNo. 09-5721

United States v. Robert E. Silvey

Silvey also moved to suppress his statements on the g rounds that he ha d not rec eived pr oper 2 Miranda wa

rn ing s. Th is m oti on

wa s d e nie d, a nd

Silv e y make s n o me nti on

of it o n a pp e a l. - 4 - down at the kitche n table, whe re the interview w as conduc ted. At t he outs et, t he ag ents “c onfirmed that Silvey

had bee n Mirandized the previous day , that he under stood those rig hts stil l applied, and that the interview was voluntary .” During the interview, Silvey reiter ated that he had be en g rowing marijuana , and he admitted to ke eping numerous firea rms in his home despite his f elony conviction. On J anuar

y 8, 2009, a fe dera l gr and jury sitti ng in the Easter n District of Ke ntucky

returne d

a seve n-count indictment agai n s t Sil vey . The indictment cha rg ed him with a var iety

of drug - and g un-re lated o ff

enses, including manuf

actur ing ma

rijuana a nd being a fe lon in possession of a firea rm. The indictment also c ontained for feiture specific ations with respec t to the guns r ecove red during the sea

rch. Two months after

the indictment was re turned, Silvey moved to suppress the e vidence found in his home, as well as the s tatements he had g iven to investigators. I n his moti on, he ar g ued that the s earch was in va lid

du e to t he a bs e nc e of inf or ma tio n in the wa rr a nt a ff ida vit g ivi ngri se to pr ob a ble c a us e . H e a lso a rgue d th a t the g oo d- fa ith e xce pti on to the e xclu sio na ry ru le did

no t a pp ly beca use a r easona

ble offic er w ould have know n t h at t h e wa rra nt was insufficie nt. I n addition, he

asser ted that his remar

ks to investigato rs wer e tainted by the illeg ality

of the sea

rch. The district court re jected the se ar g uments and denie d his moti on. 2 On Marc h 19, 2009, Silvey pleade d g uilty

to the char g e of be ing a

felon in possession of a firea rm, rese rving the rig ht to appeal the d i s t ri ct co urt’s ruling on the issue of suppre ssion. TheNo. 09-5721

United States v. Robert E. Silvey

I n a dd iti on , Si lve y

a rgue s th a t w e sh ou ld su

pp re ss h is s ta te me nts to t

he B TRN TF be c a

us e 3 the statements we re fr u i t o f the poisonous tree . Howeve r, we need not a ddress this argument ind e pe nd e ntl y ; if su

pp re ssi on of the e vid e nc e fo un d duri ngthe se a rc h is un wa rr a nte d, the n th e fr

uit

of -t he -p ois on ou s- tr e e a rgume nt f a ils

. - 5 - rema ining char g es wer e dropped pursuant to a Rule 11 plea ag ree ment. A month late r, h e w as sentenc ed to two y ear s of imprisonment, to be followed by two y ear s of supervise d rele ase. He now a ppeals the de nial of his motion to s uppress. II “In appea ls from a district cour t’s ruling on a motion t o suppress evide nce, w e re view the [di strict] court’s fac tual finding s for c lear err or and it s l ega l conclusions de novo.” United States v. Frazier , 4 2 3 F. 3 d 5 2 6 , 5 3 1 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Combs , 3 69 F .3 d 9 25 , 9 37 (6 th Cir. 2004)). “[A] denial of a motion to suppress will be af firmed on a

ppeal if the district court’s conclusion ca

n be justified for a

ny rea son.” Un ite d Sta te

s v . P as qu ar ill e , 20 F.3d 682, 685 (6th Cir. 1 9 9 4 ) ( ci t i n g Un ite d S

tat es v . B arre tt , 890 F.2d 855, 860 ( 6th Cir. 1989)). When perf orming our revie w, we must v i ew t h e evidence “ in a light most likely to support the decision of the district court.” United States v. Dy er , 580 F.3d 386, 390 ( 6th Cir. 2009). III Silvey argues that the e vidence obtained duringth e s ear ch of his home should be suppr essed. 3 Se e Il lin ois v . Kr ull , 4 8 0 U

. S. 3 4 0 , 3 4 7 ( 1 9 8 7 ) ( “ Wh e n e v id e n c e is o b ta in e d in v io lati o n of the Four th Amendment, the judicially develope d exclusionary

rule usually

pr eclude s its use in a criminal proce eding ag ainst the victim of the illeg al sear ch and seizure.”)

. Be cause the evidenc e was g ather ed pursuant to a wa

rra nt issued by

a state m agis trate, suppr ession is appropriate only if: (1) theNo. 09-5721

United States v. Robert E. Silvey

- 6 - mag istrate lac ked a substantial ba sis for deter mining that ther e wa s probable c ause to sea rch Silvey ’s home; and (2) the age nts conducting the s ear ch “could not have r elied in objective g ood faith upon the

. . . mag istrate’s decision to issue the war rant.” Un ite d S

tates v . Ko e rth , 312 F.3d 862, 865- 66 (7 t h C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Leon , 4 68 U. S. at 91 4) ; see I llinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983). I n this c ase, we think it best to a ssume that the war rant wa s invalid— i.e. , tha t th e ma g istrate la c ke d a su bs tanti a l ba sis fo r f

ind ingpr ob a

ble c a us e —a nd pr oc e e d d ir e c tly

to the iss ue of

g oo d- fa ith relianc e. See U

nited States v. Rowland , 145 F.3d 1194, 1206 n.8 (10th Cir. 1998) (e x plaining that

a re viewing court may

“turn dire ctly to the good-fa ith issue without first consideringthe validity of the war ran t u n der the Four

th Amendment”) . I n United States v. Laughton , we e x plained that g oo d- fa ithre lia

nc e on a su bs e qu e ntl y

inv a lid a te d w a rr a nt i s im po ssi ble in f

our s itu a tio ns : (1) whe n the war

rant is issued on the basis of an aff idavit that the aff

iant knows (or i s re ckless in not knowing ) conta ins false infor mation; (2) when the issuing mag istrate aba

ndons his neutra l and detac hed role and ser ves as a rubber stamp for police ac tiviti es; (3) w hen the aff idavit is so lacking in indicia of proba ble ca use that a be lie f i n it s e xiste nc e is o bje c tiv e ly un re a so na

ble ; and (4 ) w he n th e wa

rr a nt i s so fac ially defic ient that it cannot re asonably be pre sumed to be valid. 4 0 9 F. 3 d 7 4 4 , 7 4 8 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( ci t i n g Leon , 468 U. S. at 91 4- 23 ; United States v. W eave r , 99 F.3d 1372, 1380 (6th Cir. 1996)). Her e, S ilvey argues onl y that the t hird situation ex ists, contending that the a ff ida vit wa s so ba

rr e n o f d e ta il that a

re a so na ble of fi c e r w ou ld h a ve kn ow n th a t th e wa rr a nt d id not meet constitutional standards. Thus, the question become s “whe ther the of fice rs in the instant

case had a r easona

ble basis to believe that the information that was submitted [t o the mag istrate] supported the issuanc e of a war rant.” United States v. Carpenter , 360 F.3d 591, 595 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (en ba nc).No. 09-5721

United States v. Robert E. Silvey

- 7 - To a ns we r t

hat qu e sti on , w e mus t c on sid e r t he de fi nit ion

of pr ob a ble c a us e . As the Sup re me Court expl ained in Gates , p ro ba ble c a us e e xists wh e n th e re is a fa ir pro bab ili ty , g ive n th e tot a lity of the circ umstances, that ag ents will f ind contraba

nd or evide nce of

a cr ime in a par

ticular plac e. 462 U.S. at 238. For

this standard to be met, there must be a nexus betwe en the place to be sear ched and the e vidence soug ht. Carpenter , 3 6 0 F. 3 d at 5 9 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( qu o t i n g United St ates v. Van Sh utt e rs , 1 63 F .3 d 3 31 , 3 36 -3 7 ( 6th Cir . 1 99 8) ). I n a dd iti on , the inf or ma tio n r e lie d u

po n to e sta

bli sh probable cause cannot be stale; there must be some indication that the evidenc e soug ht will be found at the time of the se arc h. United States v. Brook s , 594 F.3d 488, 493 ( 6th Cir. 2010). Wit h that in mind, we hold that the aff idavit in t h i s case contains suffic ient indicia of probable cause to permit an off icer to rely on the warrant in g ood faith. Critically , the af fidavit states th a t a tr a s h b a g c o n ta in in g ma r ij u a n a c li p p in g s w a s f

o u n d a t th e e n d o f a la

n e le a d ing to the residenc e to be se arc hed. The aff idavit al s o states that the re sidence to be sea rche d—2665 US 68 —w a s th e on ly re sid e nc e on the lane . Gi ve n th is i nf or ma tio n, on e mig ht f

a ir ly inf e r t hat th e tr a sh bag was likely

to have c ome from the r esidenc e at 2 6 6 5 US 68 and that the r esidenc e ther efor e contained marijuana at one time. Fur thermore , the aff

idavit pla inly indicates that t h e m ar ijuana clippings w ere both fresh a nd consistent with sustained cultivation effor ts. Thus, the information in the aff idavit also permits the infer ence that, at the time t he af fidavit was e x ecute d, marijuana plants might still have bee n prese nt in the home. Consequently , a re asonabl e o ff i ce r co uld have

con c lu d e d th a t th e in f

o r mati o n in th e a f

f id a v it w a s e n o u g h to e s ta b li s h p r o b a

b le c ause. See Carpenter , 3 60 F .3 d at 59 6 ( fi nd ingthat off ic e rs c ou ld re a so na

bly re ly on

a wa rr a nt t o s e a rc h a

ho us eNo. 09-5721

United States v. Robert E. Silvey

- 8 - wher e the wa

rra nt aff idavit stated t hat t here was marijuana grow ing near the hous e and that there was

a roa d from the house to the marijuana ). Of c ourse, the information in the aff idavit does not eliminate the possibilit y that the marijuana came from som ewhe re else. The affidavit st ates that the t rash was found at the end of a lane that d umped out into a rura l highwa y . Admittedly , the trash c ould have be en flungout the wi nd owof

a pa ssi ngc a r, or

it c ou ld h a ve fa lle n o ff the ba c k of a g a rb a g e tr uc k. Ho we ve r, wh e n it

c o m e s t o p r o b a

b l e c a u s e , th e n a m e s a ys i ta l l ; c e r t a i n t y i s n e v e r r e qu i r e d , o n l y a

f a i r p r o b a b i l i t y. When the issue is one of g ood-fa ith reliance , even le ss is necessa ry . See U nited States v. Bynum , 293 F .3 d 1 92 , 1 95 (4 th C ir . 200 2) (h old ingthat Leon require s “a le ss demanding showing than the ‘substantial basis ’ t h re s h o l d require d to prove the e x istence of probable cause in the first place ”). The a ffidavit must simply bear some indicia o f p ro b ab l e ca use. See Laughton , 409 F.3d at 748. Her e, the a ffidavit’s de scription of the tra sh bag at the end of the lane c lear ly defe ats the notion that belief in the w arr ant’s validity was objectively unrea sonable. Thus, it is ul timately immaterial that there are alternative explanations for the bag ’s pre sence . Ac c or din g ly , w e ho ld t

hat, b e c a us e B TRN TF a g e nts re a so na bly re li ed on th e wa

rr a nt i n ob je c tiv e g oo d f

a ith , th e e vid e nc e fo un d d ur ingthe se a rc h o f S ilv e y ’s ho us e is n ot s ub je c t to suppression under

the exclusionary

rule. See Leon , 468 U.S. at 922.

IV For the fore g oing r easons, we A F F IRM th e distr ic t c ourt ’s de nia l of Silv e y ’s mot ion

to

su pp re ss.