United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
B. ATKINS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Mark S.
Lockwood, Jr.'s Motion to Suppress, [R. 27], and
Defendants Shilo W. Cantrell and Jessica N. Debarr's
Motions for Joinder, [R. 30; R. 31]. Defendants allege that
the affidavits to the search warrants fail to establish
probable cause, and thus, seek to suppress the evidence
obtained in the Lincoln Navigator and Rooms 201 and 202 of
the Days Inn Motel. [R. 27]. In response, the Government has
argued that the information contained within the “four
corners” of the affidavits supports the judicial
officer's probable cause determination, and therefore,
the motion should be denied. [R. 32 at 4-5]. Furthermore, the
Government contends that Defendants Cantrell and Debarr's
Motions for Joinder should be denied on the basis that they
lack standing to assert any Fourth Amendment challenges.
reasons below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS
that Defendant Lockwood's Motion to Suppress be
DENIED [R. 27], and that Defendants Cantrell
and Debarr's Motions for Joinder, [R. 30; R. 31], be
March 16, 2018, two search warrants were executed. [R. 32-2;
R. 32-3]. The first search warrant obtained and executed by
the officer was for a black, 2002 Lincoln Navigator, which
was registered to Defendant Lockwood
(“Lockwood”). [R. 32-2]. The second search
warrant obtained were for Rooms 201 and 202 of the Days Inn
Motel, which had been reserved under Lockwood's name. [R.
inventory of the 2002 Lincoln Navigator revealed a fully
loaded 9mm Taurus Pistol and box, approximately 415 grams of
methamphetamine, 7 grams of fentanyl, and drug paraphernalia,
including: multiple baggies in plain view, glass pipes
“commonly used for smoking meth and crack, ” two
digital scales, five cellphones, and a laptop. [R. 32 at 3
¶ 2; R. 32-1 at 10 ¶ 3]. The search of Room 201 of
the Days Inn revealed three syringes and a small quantity of
methamphetamine. [R. 32 at 3 ¶ 3; R. 32-1 at 10 ¶
5]. No evidence was found in Room 202. [Id.].
now wishes to suppress all items seized from both searches
and requests a hearing to be set on this matter. [R. 27].
Defendants Cantrell and Debarr have moved for joinder on this
issue. [R. 30; R. 31].
Fourth Amendment provides:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
U.S. Const. amend. IV (emphasis added).
importantly, the text of the Fourth Amendment makes clear
that “the ultimate touchstone… is
‘reasonableness.' ” Brigham City v.
Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). To satisfy the warrant
requirement, a detached, neutral magistrate judge must find
that there is probable cause that evidence of a crime will be
found. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913-15
(1984). The “warrant must be supported by ‘facts
so closely related to the time of the issue of the warrant as
to justify a finding of probable cause at that time.'
” United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480, 485
(6th Cir. 2006) (quoting Sgro v. United States, 187
U.S. 206, 210 (1932). “[G]reat deference” is
given to a magistrate's determination that probable cause
exists. Id. at 914; see also United States v.
Davidson, 936 F.2d 856, 859 (6th Cir. 1991).
cause ‘is not a high bar.' ” District of
Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.Ct. 577, 586 (2018) (quoting
Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014)).
Probable cause requires that there be a fair probability that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place. United States v. Williams, 544
F.3d 683, 686 (6th Cir. 2008); see also United States v.
Laughton, 409 F.3d 744, 747 (6th Cir. 2005). In other
words, the probable cause a search warrant requires “
‘is concerned with facts relating to a presently
existing condition.' ” United States v.
Spikes, 158 F.3d 913, 923 (6th Cir.1998) (quoting W.
LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.7 at 338 (3d ed.1996)).
is a “presumption of validity with respect to the
affidavit supporting the search warrant.” Franks v.
Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978). In making the
probable cause determination, the magistrate makes a
“practical, common-sense decision ... given all the
circumstances set forth in the affidavit.” Illinois
v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). This determination
should be reversed only if the magistrate arbitrarily
exercised his ...