Opinion ID: 4289070
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The January controlled buy

Text: Christian also contends that the evidence of the January 2015 controlled buy was stale when the affidavit was executed in September 2015 and thus could not have supported a finding of probable cause to search the Residence. The government disputes this contention, arguing that because the officers sought records and indicia of continuous drug trafficking, the evidence was not stale. “[S]tale information cannot be used in a probable cause determination.” United States v. Perry, 864 F.3d 412, 414 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 374, 377 (6th Cir. 2009)); see also United States v. Harris, 255 F.3d 288, 299 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Because probable cause to search is concerned with facts relating to a presently existing condition, . . . there arises the unique problem of whether the probable cause which once existed has grown stale.” (quoting United States v. Spikes, 158 F.3d 913, 923 (6th Cir. 1998))). Whether evidence is stale is a flexible inquiry that does not “create an arbitrary time limitation within which discovered facts must be presented to a magistrate.” United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 480 No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 12 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Spikes, 158 F.3d at 923). “A key but by no means controlling issue is the length of time between the events listed in the affidavit and the application for the warrant.” United States v. Leaster, 35 F. App’x 402, 406 (6th Cir. 2002). Courts should consider several factors, including: [1] [t]he character of the crime (chance encounter in the night or regenerating conspiracy?), [2] the criminal (nomadic or entrenched?), [3] the thing to be seized (perishable and easily transferable or of enduring utility to its holder?), [4] the place to be searched (mere criminal forum of convenience or secure operational base?). Greene, 250 F.3d at 480–81 (quoting Spikes, 158 F.3d at 923).
There is little question that the second and fourth factors weigh in favor of finding that the evidence of the January controlled buy was not stale. The affidavit supports the conclusion that Christian had been occupying the Residence in Grand Rapids since at least 2009 and was thus “entrenched” in the community. See Frechette, 583 F.3d at 379 (finding that the defendant was entrenched when evidence in the affidavit indicated that he had lived in the residence in question for 16 months). Moreover, courts have repeatedly held that a defendant’s residence “is clearly a ‘secure operational base.’” Id. (citing United States v. Paull, 551 F.3d 516, 522 (6th Cir. 2009)); see also United States v. Powell, 603 F. App’x 475, 478 (6th Cir. 2015) (noting that an individual’s home “is more like a secure operational base than a mere forum of convenience”).
The first and third factors, however, weigh in favor of finding that the evidence of the controlled buy was stale. With regard to the first factor, “[i]f an affidavit recites activity indicating protracted or continuous conduct, time is of less significance.” United States v. Henson, 848 F.2d 1374, 1382 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Haimowitz, 706 F.2d 1549, 1554–55 (11th Cir. 1983)). The Sixth Circuit has used both the terms “protracted and continuous” and “ongoing and continuous.” Compare Perry, 864 F.3d at 415, with United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480, 485 (6th Cir. 2006). Both variations appear to encompass two No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 13 principles: that the conduct extended over a significant period of time and that it continued up to (or close to) the time of the search. (For clarity, we will use “protracted” for the first principle and “continuous” for the latter.) The key question, then, is whether the affidavit contains facts supporting an inference that Christian was engaged in recurrent or sustained drug-trafficking activity up to the time of the search. As this circuit has pointed out: The crime at issue in this case—the sale of drugs out of a residence—is not inherently ongoing. Rather, it exists upon a continuum ranging from an individual who effectuates the occasional sale from his or her personal holdings of drugs to known acquaintances, to an organized group operating an established and notorious drug den. The inclusion of outdated information has been insufficient to render an entire affidavit stale when the affidavit as a whole establishes that the criminal activity in question is ongoing and continuous, or closer to the “drug den” end of the continuum. Hython, 443 F.3d at 485. But if the affidavit, taken as a whole, suggests that the defendant is engaged in something closer to the “occasional sale from . . . personal holdings[,]” id., then “information goes stale very quickly ‘because drugs are usually sold and consumed in a prompt fashion[,]’” United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Frechette, 583 F.3d at 378). Again, we must focus on what the warrant application establishes through its factual assertions, not the conclusory statements made by the affiant. United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683, 687 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding that a warrant application demonstrated continuous illegal firearm activity where it stated that the defendant possessed two firearms, had used a firearm to rob a drug trafficker one month prior, was recently arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, and was also recently arrested for possession of a stolen vehicle where a gun was found in the vehicle). Here, Officer Bush explains that “a credible and reliable informant” engaged in a controlled purchase of drugs from Christian at the Residence in January 2015, eight months before Officer Bush sought the warrant at issue in this case. But the affidavit provides almost no detail regarding the controlled buy—it does not state whether the officers observed the buy, identify the type or amount of the controlled substance purchased, indicate how the purchase was initiated, or reveal if the informant had purchased drugs from Christian previously. Nor does the No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 14 affidavit disclose whether the informant saw large quantities of drugs in Christian’s possession or in the Residence. See United States v. Abernanthy, 843 F.3d 243, 255 (6th Cir. 2016) (noting that a large quantity of drugs found in a trash can outside of a residence would suggest “repeated and ongoing drug activity in the residence”). Nothing about the January 2015 single controlled buy of an unknown quantity of an unknown drug by an informant with an unknown relationship to Christian suggests that Christian was engaged in protracted or continuous drug trafficking. In denying Christian’s motion to suppress, the district court recognized that the credible informant engaged in only a single buy in January 2015, but emphasized that the informant provided information describing Christian’s involvement in a “more extensive network of trafficking.” A review of the affidavit, however, does not support the district court’s observation. The affidavit states that the credible informant “provided information on several drug traffickers including Tyrone Christian.” This information consisted of “names, nicknames, phone numbers, residences utilized by the drug traffickers and information regarding specific drug transactions.” But the affidavit gives no explanation as to what information the informant provided relating to Christian specifically. Nor does it suggest that Christian was in cahoots with the other alleged drug traffickers so as to imply his involvement in an extensive and organized network. This vague and conclusory reference to Christian as a drug trafficker is insufficient. “A magistrate . . . must base determination of probable cause on sufficient information for the exercise of independent judgment rather than merely ratifying the bare conclusions of others.” United States v. Hoover, 755 F.2d 933,  (6th Cir. 1985) (unpublished table decision); see also United States v. Gaston, 16 F. App’x 375, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2001) (“It is not enough that the police officer have probable cause to believe that the things to be seized may be found in the premises to be searched, or that the police officer present to the magistrate a conclusory statement that probable cause exists; the officer must present to a neutral magistrate sufficient facts to permit the magistrate to make his own independent judgment that there is probable cause.”). Here, the four corners of the affidavit reflect only a single purchase from a reliable informant eight months before the search and no other credible evidence of drug activity beyond No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 15 four prior drug convictions ranging from 4 to 19 years old (the significance of these drug convictions for the probable-cause determination will be discussed in further detail below). We therefore conclude that the affidavit does not establish that Christian was engaged in protracted and continuous drug trafficking. Cf. United States v. Sinclair, 631 F. App’x 344, 348 (6th Cir. 2015) (evaluating the staleness factors and concluding that the crime at issue was “an ongoing drug trafficking conspiracy” when a confidential informant reported purchasing heroin from the defendant “for several years,” and the officers observed the defendant engaging in activity consistent with drug trafficking over the most recent 12 months, with the last observation occurring just 15 days before the search warrant was executed at the defendant’s residence); United States v. Greene, 250 F.3d 471, 481 (6th Cir. 2001) (finding protracted and continuous drug trafficking where a reliable confidential informant reported purchasing drugs from the defendant at his residence at least 12 times, the last purchase occurring 23 months before the search warrant executed, because the informant also stated that a package was sent from the residence to a known drug dealer less than one month prior to the execution of the warrant).
With regard to the third Spikes factor—whether the evidence to be seized is of enduring utility to the holder—the government contends that the warrant sought not only controlled substances, but also records of drug trafficking and firearms used in drug trafficking. These latter two categories of evidence, it argues, are likely to endure, even if controlled substances themselves are not. To support this argument, the government relies on United States v. Burney, 778 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2015). But Burney is distinguishable from the present case because there was no dispute that the 17-page affidavit in Burney provided sufficient evidence that the property had been used as a stash house for “a large-scale drug trafficking and money laundering operation— . . . a regenerating, enduring criminal enterprise that bears no resemblance to a ‘chance encounter in the night.’” Id. at 538, 541–42. Such an extensive operation was likely to involve “scales, weapons, safes, bagging materials, and the like,” evidence that was “not readily consumable” and thus unlikely to “be consumed or to disappear.” Id. at 541. In his affidavit in the present case, Officer Bush acknowledged the distinction between those who occasionally sell from their own supply—and thus produce little lasting evidence— No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 16 and those who sell regularly for profit using extensive networks that likely involve durable evidence like records and firearms. Although Officer Bush stated in the affidavit that he was seeking records and firearms related to extensive drug-trafficking operations, this statement assumes what the affidavit tried and failed to prove by substantial evidence—that Christian was engaged in organized and extensive drug-trafficking operations likely to involve not only controlled substances, but also records and firearms. Because the government has provided credible evidence of just one sale of an unknown quantity of a controlled substance in January 2015, rather than “a large-scale drug trafficking and money laundering operation,” it failed to provide a reason to believe that records of drug trafficking and firearms would be found at the Residence. Whether those types of evidence are durable is thus irrelevant. And “‘because drugs are usually sold and consumed in a prompt fashion[,]’” evidence of a single drug sale became stale “very quickly” and well before the search was executed eight months later. See United States v. Abernanthy, 843 F.3d 243, 250 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting Brooks, 594 F.3d at 493); see also Hython, 443 F.3d at 486 (noting the limited evidentiary value of an undated controlled buy absent evidence of any recent drug activity at the residence). Consequently, we find that the third factor weighs in favor of finding the evidence of the controlled buy to be stale.
The first and third Spikes factors control the determination of whether evidence of the controlled buy is stale in this case. Although Christian is entrenched in the community and his residence would be a secure base of operations, the key question is whether evidence of drug activity would be found there at the time of the search. With no reliable evidence of continuous and protracted drug activity, the eight-month-old controlled buy was stale. This court’s decision in United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2010), offers strong support for our conclusion. Brooks considered whether an affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause to search the defendant’s residence for evidence of drug crimes. Crucially, the affiant-officer arrested the defendant for aggravated drug trafficking at the defendant’s residence and, in the process, smelled marijuana and observed marijuana seeds in No. 17-1799 United States v. Christian Page 17 plain view, as well as found $1,000 in cash on the defendant after conducting a pat-down search. Later that day, the affiant-officer executed the affidavit in support of the search warrant. On review, this court held that the officer’s observations alone were sufficient to support probable cause. Id. at 495. But the affidavit in Brooks also contained several other pieces of information that by themselves would not, according to the court, have established probable cause. These were: (1) four tips from confidential informants, stating that the defendant was trafficking in cocaine, with the tips ranging from one to five years old at the time that the affidavit was executed; (2) a six-month-old tip from a confidential informant, stating that the defendant was selling cocaine from his residence; and (3) two controlled buys made by a confidential informant six months before the affidavit was executed. The court noted that there is no question but that this information is stale for purposes of establishing probable cause in its own right. All of the information is regarding drug transactions that took place, at the most recent, approximately six months prior to the date of the affidavit. Given the mobile and quickly consumable nature of narcotics, evidence of drug sales or purchases loses its freshness extremely quickly. Id. at 493 n.4. Similarly, the single controlled buy conducted in the present case was undoubtedly stale when the warrant was executed eight months later. Cf. United States v. Yates, 501 F. App’x 505, 511 (6th Cir. 2012) (concluding that evidence of a single drug transaction occurring at a residence was not stale when the transaction occurred within ten days of the affidavit’s execution); United States v. Pinson, 321 F.3d 558, 565 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting that evidence of a single controlled purchase was not stale when the warrant was issued three days later).