Opinion ID: 2823382
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Affidavit in Support of the Search Warrant

Text: The Fourth Amendment guarantees that “no [w]arrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. IV. In the context of a search warrant, “probable cause exists when there is a fair probability, given the totality of the circumstances, that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” United States v. Helton, 314 F.3d 812, 819 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). An affidavit serving as the basis for a search warrant must “contain adequate supporting facts about the underlying circumstances to show that probable cause exists for the issuance of the warrant.” Weaver, 99 F.3d at 1377. “When confronted with hearsay information from a confidential informant or an anonymous tipster, a court must consider the veracity, reliability, and the basis of knowledge for that information as part of the totality of the circumstances for evaluating the impact of that information.” Helton, 314 F.3d at 819. The Supreme Court has held that: The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). In order to facilitate “an independent judicial determination that the informant is reliable,” an affidavit must include sufficient supporting facts, but “those facts need not take any particular form.” United States v. McCraven, 401 F.3d 693, 697 (6th Cir. 2005). We have previously held that such supporting facts could take the form of police corroboration of “significant parts of the informant’s story,” an attestation “with some detail that the informant provided reliable information [to the affiant] in the past,” or “the willingness of the informant to reveal his or her name.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 11 No. 14-5093 Additionally, the reliability of a confidential informant’s hearsay statements “may be corroborated by various means, including direct surveillance or circumstantial evidence, or [being] vouchsafed by the affiant’s statements about the informant’s past performance.” United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 473, 478 (6th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the affidavit supporting the challenged search warrant included the following description: On 1-26-20 at approximately 1900 hrs, Detective Galluzi met with a confidential informant, hereafter referred to as CI. The CI and the CI’s vehicle were searched for illegal contraband, and none was found. The CI arranged to sell 3000 80 mg Oxycontin tablets at Mustang Sally’s Bar located at 1800 Dickerson Road. Detective Galluzzi gave the CI 3000 placebo Oxycontin tablets. The CI was directed to pick up Anthony Griffin at 26th Avenue and Clarksville Pike prior to arriving at Mustang Sally’s. The CI was followed directly to this location where he picked up Anthony Griffin. Griffin entered the vehicle with the CI, and the CI drove Griffin to Mustang Sally’s, 1800 Dickerson Pike. The CI and Anthony Griffin exited the vehicle and entered Mustang Sally’s Bar. Albert Franklin was waiting inside, and asked the CI to show him the pills. The CI displayed the pills, and Albert Franklin pointed a handgun at the CI. Franklin told the CI to leave the bar. The CI exited the bar leaving the pills inside. The CI was under constant surveillance of officers. Said CI is familiar with Oxycontin from past exposure and experience. Your affiant knows CI is reliable for said CI has given information in the past that has led to the lawful recovery of illegal narcotics, narcotics equipment, weapons, money and felony arrests and convictions. Affiant will disclose CI’s name to the Judge signing the warrant only. The CI wishes to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal. (R. 129-2, Affidavit, Page ID # 286.) Franklin argues that the affiant’s statement regarding Kirkup’s veracity and reliability was insufficient because it lacked detail regarding the frequency and nature of the affiant’s previous interactions with Kirkup. However, an “affidavit is judged on the adequacy of what it does contain, not on what it lacks, or on what a critic might say should have been added.” 12 No. 14-5093 United States v. Thomas, 605 F.3d 300, 309 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir. 2000) (en banc)). Considering the totality of the information provided in the challenged affidavit, we find that the affidavit contains enough of the elements discussed in McCraven and Smith to support the magistrate’s finding of probable cause. First, the affidavit includes detailed information regarding the circumstances of Kirkup’s knowledge in this particular case, namely the fact that he had been instructed to arrange the drug transaction by detectives and had been given the placebos by the officers. Second, Kirkup had been under consistent police surveillance during the events described in the affidavit. Finally, the affiant attested that he had previously received reliable information from Kirkup leading to the “lawful recovery of illegal narcotics, narcotics equipment, weapons, money and felony arrests and convictions.” (R. 129-2, Affidavit, Page ID # 286.) Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Franklin’s motion to suppress the search warrant.