Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Cantrell

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington

October 9, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SHILO W. CANTRELL, et al., DEFENDANTS.

          MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          EDWARD B. ATKINS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         This 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. [Id.].

         For the 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 DENIED.

         BACKGROUND

         On 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. 32-3].

         The 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.].

         Lockwood 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].

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The 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).

         Most 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).

         “Probable 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)).

         There 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.