Court Opinion

ID: 9497302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:47:51.042213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:06.642792
License: Public Domain

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority upholds a search when the underlying affidavit neither connects a searched residence to any illegal activity nor states that a suspect observed engaging in such illicit activity away from the residence actually lives at the searched residence. Because such a warrant is so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable officer could rely on it in executing the search, I respectfully dissent.
I would affirm the judgment of the district court. There are two issues raised by this appeal: whether the warrant was supported by probable cause, and if not, whether the officers reasonably relied on the warrant in executing the search. Believing that both inquiries should be answered in the negative, I would suppress the evidence uncovered as a consequence of the illegal search of 3112 Crossgate.
I. THE AFFIDAVIT
In analyzing the legality of the first warranted search and the reasonableness of the officer’s reliance on the first warrant, it is helpful to recount the affidavit that Johnson presented to the issuing judge. Detective Johnson’s affidavit spoke of an unidentified individual, whom the unwitting called his “supplier” and who responded when the unwitting requested to purchase cocaine. Johnson did not actually see the drug exchange, but on two separate occasions Johnson “observed verbal and physical interaction between the unwitting and the male,” Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 39 (Johnson Aff. I), who was identified by the unwitting as the supplier, that was consistent with a drug sale. Also on two separate occasions, Johnson observed the supplier driving a Cadillac that was registered to Ebony Brown at 3112 Crossgate. Detectives assisting Johnson watched the supplier leaving the 3112 Crossgate residence on only one occasion, and Johnson saw the Cadillac parked in front of the residence on two consecutive mornings, although he did not see the supplier on those mornings. The affidavit attested to Johnson’s belief that “it is very common for narcotics traffickers to conceal their identity by means of having other persons register vehicles that they commonly drive and essentially own.” J.A. at 40. The affidavit also discussed how a 2002 police report showed that Brown had been robbed at gunpoint by three individuals who stole a diamond ring and cash, which led Johnson to the conclusion, based on Johnson’s “experience and expertise[,] ... that the robbery ... is indicative of suspects searching for narcotics and large sums of cash.” J.A. at 40. Finally, the affidavit attested to Johnson’s belief that in his experience, drug traffickers are likely to keep records and documents of their illicit activities at their residences. J.A. at 41.
The affidavit is notable for what it lacks. It fails to identify the name of the supplier or to provide a detailed description of him. It in no way suggests that any drug trafficking activity was seen transpiring in or near the residence. The affidavit does not state or provide any information implying that the supplier lived or resided at 3112 Crossgate, aside from Johnson’s statement that the supplier was seen leaving that location on one lone occasion. Additionally, the affidavit does not indicate that Johnson performed any research to determine whether the supplier, or Brown, lived at or owned 3112 Crossgate.
II. PROBABLE CAUSE
Based upon the fundamental principles of the law of warranted searches, I cannot *245conclude that probable cause supported the issuance of the search warrant. The Fourth Amendment states that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. The question is whether “given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit ... 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, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1984). In evaluating the issuing magistrate’s probable cause determination, we apply a flexible “totality of the circumstances” approach, which permits us to evaluate the particular facts of each case. Id. Despite our consideration of a broad range of circumstances that factor into a magistrate’s probable cause determination, there are “limits beyond which a magistrate may not venture in issuing a warrant.” Id. at 239. “Sufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others.” Id. Because Johnson’s affidavit did not establish that Washington owned the 3112 Crossgate residence, which diminished the likelihood that evidence of drug trafficking would be found there, I believe the magistrate erred in its probable cause determination.
Any review of this search must begin with the clear reality that Johnson’s affidavit did not mention any illicit activity at the searched residence nor did it present any credible information (from a confidential informant or an unwitting) that drug trafficking occurred there. Unlike other cases in which drug activity was reported near or at a residence, either by surveilling police or an informant, there was no such information provided here. Cf. United States v. Martin, 920 F.2d 393, 399 (6th Cir.1990) (upholding search when narcotics sale occurred near the residence and a confidential informant provided information about drug activity occurring inside the residence); United States v. Pelham, 801 F.2d 875, 878 (6th Cir.1986) (“When a witness has seen evidence in a specific location in the immediate past, and is willing to be named in the affidavit, the ‘totality of the circumstances’ presents a ‘substantial basis’ for conducting a search for that evidence.”). Johnson’s affidavit stated that he observed the supplier meet with the unwitting twice in locations away from the residence, but Johnson never observed drug trafficking behavior at 3112 Cross-gate. The supplier’s actions may have provided probable cause for an arrest warrant, but the proper determinant of a search warrant is whether evidence is likely to be found on the premises to be searched. See Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 556, 98 S.Ct. 1970, 56 L.Ed.2d 525 (1978) (“The critical element in a reasonable search is not that the owner of the property is suspected of crime but that there is reasonable cause to believe that the specific ‘things’ to be searched for and seized are located on the property to which entry is sought.”).
In prior cases, a paucity of details linking a defendant to the named residence and to drug activity at that residence has led us to conclude that probable cause did not support the issued warrants. In United States v. Helton, 314 F.3d 812 (6th Cir.2003), we held that probable cause did not exist when there was no observation of drug activity at a residence and little to no additional proof connecting the residence to drug trafficking. The affidavit in Hel-ton attested to three phone calls a month between the searched residence and known drug dealers, a description of the residence, and an assertion that one of the drug dealers stored money with someone other than the defendant somewhere other than the residence. Id. at 820-21. After *246considering other circumstances of “minimal persuasive value,” we held that there was little to no probability that the searched residence contained drugs or drug proceeds. Id. at 823; see also United States v. Savoca, 761 F.2d 292, 295 (6th Cir.1985) (holding that probable cause did not support search of a motel room where two known bank robbers were observed together, even taking into account the inference that bank robbers tend to conceal evidence in places like hotel rooms, because there was nothing linking the motel room to the particular crime, which had occurred over 2,000 miles away).1 Similar to the facts in Helton, there was no direct connection between the supposed illegal drug activity observed by Johnson and 3112 Crossgate; the gulf between the two is bridged by Johnson’s statement that it is common for drug traffickers to keep business records and journals at their residences.
The affidavit’s reliance upon a belief that drug-related materials may be found in the homes of those who sell drugs elsewhere in lieu of articulable observations of drug trafficking behavior at a residence does not per se condemn the magistrate’s probable cause determination. In the past, we have held that an observation of drug trafficking away from a dealer’s residence can provide probable cause to search the alleged dealer’s residence. United States v. Miggins, 302 F.3d 384, 393-94 (6th Cir.2002). We have permitted searches of a trafficker’s residence when the trafficker is observed dealing drugs elsewhere, despite the attenuated connection between the trafficking and the residence, because an officer’s experience that drug dealers often store evidence of their activities at their residences enhances the probability that trafficking-related evidence will be discovered. Id.; see also United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 974-75 (6th Cir.1998) (“[T]he fact that the incidents referred to in the affidavits took place on the premises [ (in the driveway of the residence or in the defendant’s car) ] rather than inside the house does not invalidate the search of the house.”); United States v. Caicedo, 85 F.3d 1184, 1193 (6th Cir.1996) (finding probable cause when affidavit attested to officer’s experience that “ ‘many drug traffickers utilize their homes to conduct their illegal narcotics trafficking activities’ ”). Nonetheless, in these types of cases we should be mindful that Gates’s “totality of the circumstances” test requires us to eschew firm rules and that evidence may not always be likely to be found where a dealer resides. See United States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 975 (6th Cir.2000) (en banc) (“As the Court observed in Gates, tests and prongs have an unfortunate tendency to develop a life of their own, and tend to draw more attention to their individual characteristics than to the totality of the circumstances.”).
We are presented with an altogether different set of circumstances when the *247affidavit in question fails to demonstrate that the suspect actually owns or lives at the residence. The link between the suspect and the residence is the key support for the inference that a residential search is likely to turn up evidence of illicit drug activity. When that link is missing, it. is an impermissible logical leap to assume that evidence will be found at a location where the suspect does not reside. While it makes some logical sense that drug dealers may maintain records and documents at their homes, it is less reasonable that traffickers would keep records and documents in places where they temporarily reside (visiting a friend’s house or a motel) or where they are temporarily guests (spending several hours at the home of an acquaintance). It is notable that there is no comparable inference in Johnson’s affidavit that drug dealers tend to keep documents and records of their trafficking at any house where police happen to see them, nor would such a presupposition be plausible or supportable absent some direct observation or knowledge of documents kept at a particular location.
Reviewing the warrant in a “practical, common-sense” manner, it is clear that there was a dramatic reduction in the probability that evidence of drug trafficking would have been found at 3112 Cross-gate when the affidavit failed to draw the critical link between the supplier’s activities outside the residence and the residence itself. See United States v. Van Shutters, 163 F.3d 331, 337 n. 4 (6th Cir.1998) (noting that verification that defendant actually lived at the searched residence “should have been included in the affidavit”). Johnson’s affidavit stated that his supporting detectives observed the unnamed supplier leaving the 3112 Crossgate address on one single occasion, but the affidavit contains no other information about the supplier’s connection to the residence. Nor did the affidavit claim that Brown resided at 3112 Crossgate. At the time he produced the affidavit, Johnson did not know, and consequently did not and could not inform the court, whether the supplier lived at the residence, was an occasional houseguest, or just visited 3112 Crossgate on the morning he was observed leaving the house.
Unlike the affidavits in other cases in which officers have clearly established that a defendant owned the residence to be searched, Johnson’s affidavit did not reflect any research into mortgage or phone records, or any other potential proof that Washington lived or resided at 3112 Crossgate. See Miggins, 302 F.3d at 388 (affidavit drew link between defendants and searched residence, even though no drug trafficking activity occurred at the residence); United States v. Watkins, 179 F.3d 489, 493 (6th Cir.1999) (affidavit clearly established that residence was owned by defendant); Caicedo, 85 F.3d at 1193 (affidavit noted that defendant had lied about his address and the affidavit claimed that defendant’s concealment of his true address could indicate that additional evidence would be found at his actual residence); United States v. Schultz, 14 F.3d 1093, 1097 (6th Cir.1994) (upholding search when there were clear links between defendant and searched apartment; the affidavit attested to the fact that the defendant resided in the apartment, and automobiles registered to the defendant were parked at the searched apartment complex); United States v. Davidson, 936 F.2d 856, 857-58, 859-60 (6th Cir.1991) (affidavit attesting to a widespread and thoroughly documented pattern of drug trafficking activity clearly identified that the suspect lived at the searched residence). Furthermore, unlike many of our other decisions in this area, Johnson’s affidavit failed even to identify the name of the individual who was presumed to live at *2483112 Crossgate. Not every affidavit and warrant must identify the suspect or name the suspect as the owner of the searched property, but when the only evidence making it probable that illicit materials will be found at a particular residence is the assumption that drug dealers tend to keep drugs, money, guns, and records at their homes, it seems clear that there should be evidence that the trafficker actually owns or resides at the property to be searched. Cf. United States v. Pinson, 321 F.3d 558, 564-65 (6th Cir.2003) (holding that an affidavit does not need to name a dealer or the owner of searched property, but only when a confidential informant actually purchased drugs and witnessed drug trafficking at the searched residence).
Johnson’s other ruminations in the affidavit about the supplier’s connection to the residence and Brown’s connections to the supplier’s alleged drug trafficking constitute little more than speculation and fail to sustain the legality of the search. Johnson’s observations of the Cadillac outside 3112 Crossgate on two separate mornings did not at all establish that the supplier resided at that address. Nor does Johnson’s suggestion that the supplier registered the Cadillac in Brown’s name to conceal his identity successfully show that the supplier lived at 3112 Crossgate. Furthermore, Johnson’s statement that the theft of a diamond ring and cash from Brown “is indicative of suspects searching for narcotics and large sums of cash,” J.A. at 40, is little more than guesswork because the robbery may have occurred for myriad reasons. This speculation is also irrelevant; the robbery incident does nothing to establish that the supplier lived or resided at 3112 Crossgate.
Considering the “totality of the circumstances” — the dearth of observed drug trafficking activity at 3112 Crossgate, the failure of the affidavit to prove that the supplier resided at 3112 Crossgate, the failure of the affidavit to identify the supplier, and the lack of any additional evidence demonstrating a probability that drug evidence would be found at the residence — Johnson’s affidavit failed to establish a fair probability that documents relating to drug trafficking would be discovered at the 3112 Crossgate residence. Therefore, the warrant was not supported by probable cause, and the search cannot be justified on that basis.
III. THE LEON GOOD-FAITH EXCEPTION
The majority errs by concluding that the good-faith exception established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), insulates the search from reproach. Leon articulated the principle that the exclusionary rule does not operate “to bar admission of evidence seized in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently held to be defective.” Van Shutters, 163 F.3d at 337 (quotations omitted). However, Leon will not apply when “it is clear that ... the officer will have no reasonable grounds for believing that the warrant was properly issued.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405. The relevant exception to the Leon rule provides that “an officer [would not] manifest objective good faith in relying on a warrant based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Id. at 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (emphasis added). Thus, the inquiry is whether Johnson’s affidavit was so deficient in establishing probable cause to search 3112 Crossgate that “a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s authorization.” Id. n. 23.
*249The application of Leon to this precise factual situation' — where no criminal activity is observed at the searched residence and the affidavit fails: 1) to identify the suspect; and 2) to demonstrate that the suspect lives at the place to be searched— is a novel question for this circuit. In different factual circumstances, we have held that an officer’s reliance on a warrant was objectively unreasonable when the warrant failed to make a sufficient connection between a suspect, the suspect’s illegal actions, the objects to be seized, and the place to be searched. See Helton, 314 F.3d at 825 (“A reasonable officer knows that evidence of three calls a month to known drug dealers from a house, a description of that house, and an allegation that a drug dealer stores drug proceeds with his brother and his brother’s girlfriend (neither of whom live at or are known to visit that house), falls well short of establishing probable cause that the house contains evidence of a crime.”); United States v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372, 1381 (6th Cir.1998) (holding that “a reasonably prudent officer would have sought greater corroboration to show probable cause” when the affidavit did not indicate a fair probability that a suspect was growing marijuana at a particular residence); United States v. Leake, 998 F.2d 1359, 1367 (6th Cir.1993) (rejecting application of Leon because “a two-night, two-hour surveillance simply produced no significant corroboration of the information’s claim of marijuana trafficking”).
The government unpersuasively suggests that several of our cases mandate an outcome in its favor because those cases apply the good-faith exception “despite the lack of any nexus between the criminal activity and the place to be searched.” Gov’t Br. at 34 (citing Van Shutters, 163 F.3d at 337-38; Schultz, 14 F.3d at 1098; Savoca, 761 F.2d at 298). The government’s misreading of these cases explains its overstatement; in the cited cases, an identified suspect and a strong and demonstrable connection between the suspect and the place to be searched served as the nexus between the criminal activity and the search location. For example, in Van Shutters, the affiant had personal knowledge of the suspect’s criminal enterprises, the affidavit implied that the affiant had observed the suspect in the searched residence or otherwise determined that the suspect frequented the residence, and a search of a different residence owned by the suspect turned up incriminating evidence. Van Shutters, 163 F.3d at 334, 337. We ruled that Leon preserved the fruits of the search. In Schultz, an officer sought a warrant to search a safe-deposit box based upon the intuition that documents and records of drug distribution are often kept in such boxes. Schultz, 14 F.3d at 1097. We held that despite the lack of a nexus between the crime and the safe-deposit boxes, the connection was not so remote as to make Leon inapplicable. Id. at 1098. In Schultz, however, there was a proven nexus between the suspect and the safe-deposit box, a connection missing here. See also Savoca, 761 F.2d at 298 (holding that affidavit was not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause” when two known bank robbers were observed staying at the motel room that was searched). By contrast, Johnson’s affidavit does not show in any meaningful fashion that the supplier was connected to 3112 Crossgate in a way that would increase the probability that documentary evidence would be discovered there.
The majority’s belief that the result here is dictated by United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591 (6th Cir.2004) (en banc) is no less misplaced. In Carpenter, a majority of the en banc court upheld a search under Leon when an affidavit stated merely that marijuana was observed near a residence *250belonging to the defendants and that a road connected the residence to the marijuana. Id. at 593. The Carpenter majority discussed the applicability of Leon in cases when “the affidavit contained a minimally sufficient nexus between the illegal activity and the place to be searched to support an officer’s good-faith belief in the warrant’s validity.” Id. at 596. The court concluded that the officers acted reasonably in searching the Carpenters’ residence for evidence of marijuana cultivation. Id.
I continue to believe that Carpenter was wrongly decided, id. at 601-04 (Moore, J., dissenting), but it is the law in this circuit. Nonetheless, its holding does not guide this outcome because of the differences between the two cases. The “minimally sufficient” nexus of physical proximity between the drugs and the residence that was the focal point in Carpenter is not evident in this case. The majority in Carpenter felt that an observation of marijuana growing “near” the residence (about 900 feet away), as opposed to “in,” “abutting,” or “within the curtilage of’ the residence, justified the officers’ reasonable reliance upon the warrant even though the proximity of the marijuana was too remote to give probable cause to search. By contrast, Johnson did not observe drug activity anywhere near 3112 Crossgate; the purported trafficking occurred several miles from the home. As a result, Johnson, unlike the officer in Carpenter, could not rely on the propinquity of the drugs to the residence as an indicator that drugs were likely to be discovered at the home. Instead, Johnson had to rely on the extremely tenuous link between the supplier and the residence and the presumption that a trafficker will keep drug-related materials at their residence. Relatedly, the warrant in Carpenter strongly implied that the defendants owned the residence, but it did not need to because the observation of the marijuana plants “near” the residence provided the requisite nexus that made belief in the warrant’s validity reasonable. Dissimilarly, Johnson’s warrant made no mention of the supplier’s connection to 3112 Crossgate, but such a connection was absolutely necessary given that the supplier, as opposed to some observation of physical proximity, served as the primary link to the residence.
Any reasonable officer would have known that probable cause did not support the warrant because the affidavit’s discussion of only a sparse and speculative connection between the supplier and 3112 Crossgate highlighted its clear deficiencies. As justification for the document search, Johnson relied on his intuition and experience that those involved in trafficking often keep records of their illegal activities where they live. Yet, the affidavit did not identify the supplier or attempt to show that the supplier resided at the 3112 Crossgate, both of which constitute fatal omissions. Any reasonable officer would have known that it is illegal to search a residence when it is not clear that the suspect lives or resides there or conducts illegal drug activity there, because there is not a high probability that the desired evidence will be uncovered at that location. A reasonable officer would have realized that, without more surveillance or research, he or she could not determine whether the supplier owned the residence at 3112 Crossgate, was an occasional houseguest, or simply stayed at 3112 Crossgate the one time he was observed leaving the house. Under such circumstances, a reasonable officer would recognize the diminished probability of finding documentary evidence at 3112 Crossgate.
Two additional facts reinforce the unreasonableness of Johnson’s reliance upon the warrant. First, Johnson’s affidavit stated that he had agreed to make a controlled *251buy of a kilogram of cocaine, which he suspected would be provided by the supplier. Johnson submitted the first affidavit and obtained the first warrant before the buy occurred, and the abandonment of the controlled buy suggests that the officers acted with unnecessary haste when more investigation could have been conducted. Second, it is impossible to ignore the ease with which Johnson could have uncovered the supplier’s connection to 3112 Crossgate. A simple public records inquiry, further research into the name on the utilities accounts registered at the address, or additional surveillance would have provided clear evidence of whether the supplier actually lived at 3112 Crossgate. The relative prolixity of the affidavit (4 pages, single-spaced) does not remedy its failure to provide easily acquired and vital information linking the supplier to the residence. See, e.g., Helton, 314 F.3d at 816, 824 (showing that length of affidavit is not dispositive by rejecting application of Leon even though affidavit was twenty-seven pages long). It was unreasonable for Johnson to rely on an affidavit lacking this critical information.
IV. CONCLUSION
In sum, I dissent because the majority’s holding further erodes the fundamental protections against unreasonable governmental intrusions promised by the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment. By declaring that the officers relied reasonably on the warrant when the underlying affidavit drew no connection between the illegal activity and the place to be searched or between the suspect and the place to be searched, the majority vitiates the prophylaxis of the search warrant requirement. In the triangulation between trafficking activity, a suspect, and a place to be searched, we have previously permitted searches even though all three points cannot be connected, but the majority unfortunately and unnecessarily debilitates the Fourth Amendment by validating a search in which neither the trafficking activity nor the suspect are tied to the location to be searched.

. In other cases, which contrary to this factual scenario involved direct observation of illicit activity at a named residence, incomplete details about the activity also led us to suppress evidence. See United States v. Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372, 1379 (6th Cir.1996) (holding that even though a confidential informant provided a tip that drug activity was occurring at a residence, the affidavit did not attest to any "substantive independent investigative actions to corroborate [the] informant's claims, such as surveillance of the ... residence for undue traffic or a second controlled purchase made with officers viewing”); United States v. Leake, 998 F.2d 1359, 1365 (6th Cir.1993) (suppressing evidence when anonymous tipster reported personal observation of drug trafficking-type activities at a residence, but the investigating detective did not notice anything out of the ordinary at the residence during his two-night surveillance, and the detective's tracing of vehicles located at the residence did not increase the probability that drugs would be found at the residence).