Opinion ID: 2978134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clark’s Motion to Suppress

Text: Clark first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from the trailer on Lot 3 of King Arthur Trailer Park because the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant contained false information, in violation of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), without which the warrant would never have issued. “On appellate review of the district court’s ruling on a Franks challenge, we review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions, and we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Keszthelyi, 308 F.3d 557, 566 (6th Cir. 2002). “A factual finding will only be clearly erroneous when, although there may be evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm 1 The district court found that Clark did not make the requisite substantial preliminary showing to warrant a Franks hearing. The court nonetheless allowed Clark the opportunity to present proofs on his Franks motion in the evidentiary hearing. -4- conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Navarro-Camacho, 186 F.3d 701, 705 (6th Cir. 1999). We view the evidence “in the light most likely to support the district court’s decision.” United States v. Braggs, 23 F.3d 1047, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In Franks, the Supreme Court held that a search warrant must be voided if, after a hearing, the defendant establishes that (1) “a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit,” and (2) “with the affidavit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. The affidavit at issue was prepared by Timothy Lane, director of the 17th Judicial District Drug Task Force, and was based upon the following facts: On June 6, 2003, a CI (later identified as Michael Wilson) made a controlled purchase of 6.9 grams of crack cocaine from Clark and codefendant Haston inside the trailer on Lot 3 at King Arthur Trailer Park in Shelbyville, Tennessee. Wilson relayed all details of the transaction to Agent Timothy Miller. According to Wilson, Clark removed a bag containing crack from his pocket and gave it to Haston, who weighed out approximately seven grams on a digital scale. Haston and Wilson exchanged the crack for cash. Using the information Wilson provided to Agent Miller, Affiant Lane prepared an affidavit in support of the search warrant. In his affidavit, Affiant Lane averred that Clark and Haston were distributing crack cocaine from the trailer at Lot 3 in King Arthur Trailer Park and that evidence, including crack cocaine, digital scales, and marked money, would be found “in possession of said person(s) or on said premises located in Bedford County, Tennessee.” Affiant Lane provided detailed information about the June 6, 2003 controlled purchase and a description of the trailer. He also recounted two prior controlled purchases of crack cocaine from Haston. The first, on May 30, -5- 2003, occurred at the trailer, and Clark was present outside when the CI arrived to make the purchase. The second occurred on June 5, 2003, at a Golden Gallon store. Affiant Lane also stated that the CI told officers that Haston lived in Nashville but regularly came to Shelbyville, usually with Clark, to sell crack at Lot 3. Affiant Lane stated that James Harden, an admitted crack addict, told Lane that Haston regularly sold crack out of a trailer in King Arthur Trailer Park in Shelbyville. On June 9, 2003, based upon Lane’s affidavit, a judge of the general sessions court for Bedford County, Tennessee granted a search warrant. The warrant was executed on June 12, 2003. Officers seized three bags of crack cocaine, totaling 26.3 grams, two digital scales from the kitchen table, a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol and ammunition from a kitchen cupboard, and three grams of marijuana found on Clark’s person. On June 18, 2004, Clark moved to suppress the evidence seized from the trailer based upon three allegedly false statements Affiant Lane made in his affidavit: (1) that Haston, Clark, and drug evidence were all located at the trailer at the time the affidavit was signed; (2) that the June 6, 2003 controlled buy occurred as Lane had described it; and (3) that Lane’s assertions that the informant was reliable were false because the informant was paid cash for his help and was dealing drugs without Lane’s knowledge. On February 23, 2005, following an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered an order denying Clark’s motion to suppress. The court found that Clark failed to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the trailer and, thus, lacked standing to challenge the search. Even if Clark had standing, the district court held the claims of false statements in Lane’s affidavit were meritless because Clark proffered no evidence indicating that the allegedly false statements were made knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth. -6- On appeal, Clark challenges language in the affidavit indicating that both he and evidence of drugs were in the trailer on June 9, 2003. The affidavit states that Clark and Haston “are currently involved in the distribution of crack cocaine from Lot #3 at the King Arthur Trailer Park” and that “[evidence of drug sales] is now located and may be found in possession of said person(s) or on said premises located in Bedford County[,] Tennessee . . . .” Clark argues that Affiant Lane knew that Clark and Haston were not at the trailer as of the date of the affidavit, i.e., June 9, 2003, so this statement must be false. We agree with the district court that Clark lacks standing to bring this claim. The trailer belonged to Reginald Brown, and Clark had no interest in it. Clark avers that he has occasionally stayed at the trailer as an overnight guest. As the district court noted, an overnight guest may have a legitimate expectation of privacy in a residence being searched. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 89-90 (1998). However, Clark fails to demonstrate an expectation of privacy in Brown’s trailer. As Clark himself argues and Affiant Lane testified, Affiant Lane knew that Clark was not an overnight guest from June 6, 2003–when the controlled purchase was made–to June 12, 2003–when the search warrant was executed. Clark has presented no evidence demonstrating how often he was an overnight guest or when his last overnight stay occurred. Therefore, the district court properly found that Clark lacked standing to challenge the search. Even if he had standing to bring the claim, Clark’s argument would fail on the merits. Throughout the affidavit, Affiant Lane chronicled in great detail the transitory nature of Haston and Clark’s drug distribution scheme. Affiant Lane explained that Haston lives in Nashville and regularly sets up shop at the trailer in Shelbyville to sell narcotics. The affidavit states that “[t]his is the residence that Haston and Clark have sold crack cocaine from,” and further references two -7- earlier controlled buys of crack cocaine from the trailer. The affidavit also explains that evidence of the drug scheme “may be found in possession of said person(s) or on said premises,” which does not support Clark’s interpretation that Affiant Lane was intimating that the drugs and Clark were necessarily on the premises at the moment Affiant Lane signed the affidavit. Therefore, reading the sentence Clark complains of in context with the entire evidence in the affidavit, we hold that Affiant Lane did not make a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Accordingly, this argument fails.