NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 24a0481n.06
No. 24-5180
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Dec 03, 2024 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN ) ALONZO QUANT’E HARRISON, DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION ) )
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BUSH and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
BUSH, Circuit Judge. Law enforcement obtained a warrant, searched Alonzo Harrison’s
residence, and found large quantities of controlled substances and several firearms. Despite the
search having been conducted under a judge-issued warrant, Harrison argues the evidence must be
suppressed. We disagree. The affidavit supporting the warrant was not so lacking in indicia of
probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. So, we AFFIRM.
I.
Harrison is no stranger to law enforcement. And in April 2022, a confidential informant
told officers in the police department of Lexington, Kentucky that Harrison was distributing
controlled substances out of a residential property in that city. Over the ensuing months, Detective
Charles Johnson, a twenty-two-year veteran of the department, investigated Harrison.
In November 2022, Johnson applied for a warrant to search another Lexington residence
associated with Harrison, with an address different from the property that the informant earlier
identified. Johnson believed Harrison was using the second residence to facilitate the distribution No. 24-5180, United States v. Harrison
of controlled substances. The two residences—one on Pine Street, the other on Strawberry Fields
Road—were referenced in a probable cause affidavit that Johnson submitted with the application.
The affidavit described his investigation as follows.
Acting on the informant’s tip, Johnson initially surveilled a residence associated with
Harrison on Pine Street. On several occasions, Johnson observed what he believed, based on his
training and experience, to be Harrison “making narcotics transactions with other subjects.”
Affidavit, R. 10–1, PageID 57. Harrison would travel from the residence to a nearby gas station,
where others would approach him, have a conversation, and then drive off.
Several months into the investigation, Harrison moved to a residence on Strawberry Fields
Road, and Johnson began surveillance of that residence. In October 2022, Johnson searched a
trash can outside the Strawberry Fields residence. He found three “individual corner baggies tied
in a knot” and seventeen “sandwich bags covered in greyish powder.” Affidavit, R. 10–1, PageID
57. Johnson later explained in his affidavit that the three “corner baggies tied in a knot [were]
consistent with someone packaging narcotics with the grey powder substance consistent with that
of heroin or fentanyl.” Id. A few weeks later, and the same day he applied for the warrant, Johnson
once again pulled four “sandwhich [sic] bags with greyish powder” out of Harrison’s trash. Id.
Taken as a whole, Johnson contended this information established probable cause to search the
Strawberry Fields residence for evidence of “the illegal use of, or trafficking in a controlled
substance.” Id. at PageID 55.
A Kentucky magistrate granted Johnson’s application and issued a warrant to search the
Strawberry Fields residence. State law enforcement then executed the warrant and seized large
quantities of controlled substances, several firearms, and a large amount of cash. Relying on the
-2- No. 24-5180, United States v. Harrison
evidence seized during the search, a federal grand jury indicted Harrison on four felony firearm
and controlled substance counts.
Harrison then moved to suppress the evidence. He argued that Johnson’s affidavit failed
to provide probable cause to authorize the search. The district court denied Harrison’s motion
without an evidentiary hearing. The court held that Johnson’s affidavit provided probable cause
to justify the warrant, and at the very least, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule would
permit introduction of the evidence seized.
Subsequently, Harrison pleaded guilty to all four counts of the indictment. But he
preserved his right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress on appeal. The district court
sentenced Harrison to a total term of 180 months’ imprisonment, and he timely appealed.
II.
Because this case turns on conclusions of law, we review the district court’s denial of
Harrison’s motion to suppress de novo. United States v. Trice, 966 F.3d 506, 512 (6th Cir. 2020).
And we will affirm the district court’s decision if it “can be justified for any reason.” United States
v. Pasquarille, 20 F.3d 682, 685 (6th Cir. 1994).
We apply the Fourth Amendment, which restates the centuries-old “right of the people to
be secure in their . . . houses . . . and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S.
Const. amend. IV. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Amendment to generally require a
warrant for a search or seizure to be reasonable. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219
(1973). And the Amendment textually requires that warrants be issued only upon a showing of
“probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.1 Harrison’s challenge
1 The Fourteenth Amendment requires state officials to respect the guarantees of the Fourth. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27–28 (1949); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655–56 (1961). And the Supreme Court has held federal prosecutors generally may not introduce evidence -3- No. 24-5180, United States v. Harrison
centers on that final requirement. He argues Johnson’s affidavit failed to provide probable cause.
And he maintains that defect requires suppression of evidence seized pursuant to the warrant.
Though longstanding, probable cause is a famously nebulous standard. See Maryland v.
Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370–71 (2003). It does not set a “high bar” for law enforcement, District
of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 57 (2018) (citation omitted), and instead requires only that an
officer demonstrate “reasonable grounds to believe that contraband will be located on the property
to be searched,” United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (citation
omitted). Determining whether an affidavit supplies probable cause is a fact-intensive inquiry that
requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances. See id. at 461–62. Rather than
viewing each factual allegation independently, we view the facts asserted in the affidavit
holistically and ask whether, “taken together,” they point to a sufficient likelihood that contraband
is located on the premises. United States v. Christian, 925 F.3d 305, 311 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 24a0481n.06
No. 24-5180
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Dec 03, 2024 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN ) ALONZO QUANT’E HARRISON, DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION ) )
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BUSH and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
BUSH, Circuit Judge. Law enforcement obtained a warrant, searched Alonzo Harrison’s
residence, and found large quantities of controlled substances and several firearms. Despite the
search having been conducted under a judge-issued warrant, Harrison argues the evidence must be
suppressed. We disagree. The affidavit supporting the warrant was not so lacking in indicia of
probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. So, we AFFIRM.
I.
Harrison is no stranger to law enforcement. And in April 2022, a confidential informant
told officers in the police department of Lexington, Kentucky that Harrison was distributing
controlled substances out of a residential property in that city. Over the ensuing months, Detective
Charles Johnson, a twenty-two-year veteran of the department, investigated Harrison.
In November 2022, Johnson applied for a warrant to search another Lexington residence
associated with Harrison, with an address different from the property that the informant earlier
identified. Johnson believed Harrison was using the second residence to facilitate the distribution No. 24-5180, United States v. Harrison
of controlled substances. The two residences—one on Pine Street, the other on Strawberry Fields
Road—were referenced in a probable cause affidavit that Johnson submitted with the application.
The affidavit described his investigation as follows.
Acting on the informant’s tip, Johnson initially surveilled a residence associated with
Harrison on Pine Street. On several occasions, Johnson observed what he believed, based on his
training and experience, to be Harrison “making narcotics transactions with other subjects.”
Affidavit, R. 10–1, PageID 57. Harrison would travel from the residence to a nearby gas station,
where others would approach him, have a conversation, and then drive off.
Several months into the investigation, Harrison moved to a residence on Strawberry Fields
Road, and Johnson began surveillance of that residence. In October 2022, Johnson searched a
trash can outside the Strawberry Fields residence. He found three “individual corner baggies tied
in a knot” and seventeen “sandwich bags covered in greyish powder.” Affidavit, R. 10–1, PageID
57. Johnson later explained in his affidavit that the three “corner baggies tied in a knot [were]
consistent with someone packaging narcotics with the grey powder substance consistent with that
of heroin or fentanyl.” Id. A few weeks later, and the same day he applied for the warrant, Johnson
once again pulled four “sandwhich [sic] bags with greyish powder” out of Harrison’s trash. Id.
Taken as a whole, Johnson contended this information established probable cause to search the
Strawberry Fields residence for evidence of “the illegal use of, or trafficking in a controlled
substance.” Id. at PageID 55.
A Kentucky magistrate granted Johnson’s application and issued a warrant to search the
Strawberry Fields residence. State law enforcement then executed the warrant and seized large
quantities of controlled substances, several firearms, and a large amount of cash. Relying on the
-2- No. 24-5180, United States v. Harrison
evidence seized during the search, a federal grand jury indicted Harrison on four felony firearm
and controlled substance counts.
Harrison then moved to suppress the evidence. He argued that Johnson’s affidavit failed
to provide probable cause to authorize the search. The district court denied Harrison’s motion
without an evidentiary hearing. The court held that Johnson’s affidavit provided probable cause
to justify the warrant, and at the very least, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule would
permit introduction of the evidence seized.
Subsequently, Harrison pleaded guilty to all four counts of the indictment. But he
preserved his right to challenge the denial of his motion to suppress on appeal. The district court
sentenced Harrison to a total term of 180 months’ imprisonment, and he timely appealed.
II.
Because this case turns on conclusions of law, we review the district court’s denial of
Harrison’s motion to suppress de novo. United States v. Trice, 966 F.3d 506, 512 (6th Cir. 2020).
And we will affirm the district court’s decision if it “can be justified for any reason.” United States
v. Pasquarille, 20 F.3d 682, 685 (6th Cir. 1994).
We apply the Fourth Amendment, which restates the centuries-old “right of the people to
be secure in their . . . houses . . . and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S.
Const. amend. IV. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Amendment to generally require a
warrant for a search or seizure to be reasonable. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219
(1973). And the Amendment textually requires that warrants be issued only upon a showing of
“probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.1 Harrison’s challenge
1 The Fourteenth Amendment requires state officials to respect the guarantees of the Fourth. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 27–28 (1949); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655–56 (1961). And the Supreme Court has held federal prosecutors generally may not introduce evidence -3- No. 24-5180, United States v. Harrison
centers on that final requirement. He argues Johnson’s affidavit failed to provide probable cause.
And he maintains that defect requires suppression of evidence seized pursuant to the warrant.
Though longstanding, probable cause is a famously nebulous standard. See Maryland v.
Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 370–71 (2003). It does not set a “high bar” for law enforcement, District
of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 57 (2018) (citation omitted), and instead requires only that an
officer demonstrate “reasonable grounds to believe that contraband will be located on the property
to be searched,” United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (citation
omitted). Determining whether an affidavit supplies probable cause is a fact-intensive inquiry that
requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances. See id. at 461–62. Rather than
viewing each factual allegation independently, we view the facts asserted in the affidavit
holistically and ask whether, “taken together,” they point to a sufficient likelihood that contraband
is located on the premises. United States v. Christian, 925 F.3d 305, 311 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc).
We need not decide whether Johnson’s affidavit provided the probable cause necessary to
issue the warrant. “The issue of whether evidence should be excluded is discrete from the question
of whether the Fourth Amendment rights of the party seeking exclusion were violated.” United
States v. Frazier, 423 F.3d 526, 535 (6th Cir. 2005). And here, the exclusionary rule does not
apply because the officers who conducted the search of Harrison’s residence acted in good-faith
reliance on the warrant. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984).
Under the good-faith exception, “when an officer relies on a search warrant later
invalidated, evidence obtained from the warrant-authorized search is admissible unless reasonable
officers would not have believed the warrant constitutionally permissible.” United States v.
obtained by state officials where, as is alleged here, the evidence was obtained as a result of an unreasonable search or seizure. Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 215–24 (1960). -4- No. 24-5180, United States v. Harrison
McCoy, 905 F.3d 409, 416 (6th Cir. 2018). Good-faith reliance on an affidavit requires a “less
demanding showing” than the “threshold required to prove the existence of probable cause.”
Frazier, 423 F.3d at 536 (citation omitted). “Still, for an officer’s reliance on a search warrant to
have been reasonable, the affidavit must present some particularized facts that indicate veracity,
reliability, and basis of knowledge and go beyond bare conclusions and suppositions.” McCoy,
905 F.3d at 416 (citation omitted).
Johnson’s affidavit did just that. It detailed a months’ long investigation of Harrison,
described in detail the specific conduct Johnson observed, including observations and physical
evidence specific to the Strawberry Fields residence, and expressed Johnson’s belief (based on his
training and experience) that Harrison was engaging in illegal narcotics distribution. That was
sufficient for a reasonable officer, also relying on the magistrate’s issuance of the warrant, to
conclude probable cause existed to search Harrison’s residence. And it also means the affidavit
was not “bare bones.” That categorization applies only when an affidavit is “conclusory” and
alleges nothing more than that the affiant believed probable cause existed. United States v. White,
874 F.3d 490, 496–97 (6th Cir. 2017). And as outlined above, the affidavit here contained “factual
allegations” supporting Johnson’s assessment of Harrison’s conduct, not just Johnson’s
“suspicions or conclusions.” Christian, 925 F.3d at 313.
The affidavit also included sufficient facts to allow a reasonable officer to infer a minimally
sufficient nexus between evidence of the crimes alleged and the Strawberry Fields residence. See
McCoy, 905 F.3d at 416. Johnson’s affidavit contained evidence indicating that Harrison kept and
dealt drugs out of his past residence. And a “reasonably well-trained officer could infer that a drug
dealer who kept drugs in his former home would also keep drugs in his current home.” Frazier,
423 F.3d at 537. What’s more, Johnson’s affidavit noted his contemporaneous recovery of
-5- No. 24-5180, United States v. Harrison
evidence from Harrison’s trash consistent with someone packaging narcotics for distribution. That
evidence, alone, may not be sufficient to create probable cause. But coupled with evidence of
Johnson’s dealing from a prior residence, it was enough to give officers a good-faith basis to
believe a nexus existed. See United States v. Abernathy, 843 F.3d 243, 251–53 (6th Cir. 2016)
(noting drug paraphernalia recovered from a trash pull may establish probable cause to search a
home when combined with other evidence of the resident’s involvement in drug crimes).
Harrison maintains that the testimony in Johnson’s affidavit was stale and therefore failed
to suggest the presence of unlawful conduct or contraband at the time the warrant was issued. See
United States v. Spikes, 158 F.3d 913, 923–24 (6th Cir. 1998). But given the circumstances of the
investigation outlined in the affidavit, a reasonable officer executing the warrant could conclude
the opposite. Johnson applied for the warrant in November 2022. And viewed collectively, the
details of his investigation outlined in the affidavit describe an “ongoing and continuous” course
of criminal conduct leading up to that date, see United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480, 485–86
(6th Cir. 2006), with specific evidence of potential contraband found at the residence on the same
day the warrant application was filed. Relying on those representations, a reasonable officer
executing the warrant could conclude that there was a reasonable likelihood that evidence of
controlled substance crimes was present when the search was conducted.
That some observations outlined in the affidavit lack specific dates when the conduct
occurred does not change our conclusion. The context of the affidavit suggests that the activity it
outlines occurred between April 2022 and November 2022. So, the affidavit provided some indicia
of “when the circumstances giving rise to probable cause occurred.” Abernathy, 843 F.3d at 250.
And even if some of the undated observations were stale, a reasonable officer could conclude that
the more recent events identified in the affidavit, including the trash pull on the day of the warrant
-6- No. 24-5180, United States v. Harrison
application, refreshed any stale information. See Spikes, 158 F.3d at 924. The affidavit, therefore,
was not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely
unreasonable.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 923 (citation omitted). And so, the district court correctly denied
Harrison’s motion to suppress.
III.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
-7-