NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0480n.06
No. 24-3906
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Oct 20, 2025 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) v. STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ) NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ) PATRICK BRADLEY, ) Defendant-Appellant. OPINION ) )
Before: KETHLEDGE, LARSEN, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Patrick Bradley appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress drug-trafficking evidence that the police found at his residence. We reject his
arguments and affirm.
I.
In January 2020, Ohio police intercepted a package containing one pound of
methamphetamine on its way to a house on Nicholas Place in Canton, Ohio. The package was
addressed to “Cindy Williams.” Law enforcement conducted a controlled delivery of the drugs,
leaving the package on the doorstep after no one answered the door. Patrick Bradley soon walked
out of the house, picked up the package, and put it in a trash can. No. 24-3906, United States v. Bradley
Later that year, three informants told police that Bradley was selling methamphetamine
and cocaine. An FBI task force then placed Bradley under surveillance.
In November 2020, Bradley sold two ounces of cocaine to a police informant. The
informant met with Bradley four times to make installment payments for the drugs. On one
occasion, Bradley left the house on Nicholas Place to meet the informant for payment; on another,
Bradley met the informant to receive payment and then returned to that same house. When he met
the informant, Bradley drove a car registered to the Nicholas Place address.
Bradley again sold drugs to the police informant two months later. He and the informant
spent a day haggling over the sale via call and text. Bradley made one of these calls from the
Nicholas Place house. Bradley offered to sell the informant one pound of methamphetamine; the
informant told Bradley that he wanted only an ounce. That evening, Bradley left Nicholas Place,
made several stops around Canton, and then met the informant to sell him the methamphetamine.
He again returned to the Nicholas Place house.
Ohio police applied for a warrant to search the house for drugs, drug proceeds, and other
evidence of drug trafficking. A state judge granted the warrant that night. Police executed the
search just after midnight, seizing nearly 300 grams of methamphetamine, 144 grams of cocaine,
52 grams of MDMA, and 33 grams of an MDMA and cocaine mixture from the home.
A grand jury thereafter indicted Bradley on three counts of possession with intent to
distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and
(b)(1)(C). Bradley moved to suppress the evidence found at the Nicholas Place house, arguing
that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. The district court denied that motion and a
motion for reconsideration.
-2- No. 24-3906, United States v. Bradley
Shortly before trial, the government produced cellphone data that police had seized from
one of Bradley’s phones. At trial, a jury convicted Bradley on all counts. In January 2024, Bradley
moved to reopen his suppression hearing. The court denied the motion. Bradley filed another
such motion in September 2024, three days before his sentencing hearing. The court denied that
motion and struck it from the record. The court then sentenced Bradley to 210 months in prison.
This appeal followed.
II.
A.
Bradley challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We review the
district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s decision. See United States v. Russell, 26 F.4th
371, 374 (6th Cir. 2022). Our review of the state judge’s decision to grant the warrant is likewise
deferential. See United States v. Brown, 732 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2013).
Bradley argues that the police lacked probable cause to search the Nicholas Place house.
Probable cause for a search warrant exists when there is a “fair probability that the specific place
to be searched contained the specific things to be seized.” United States v. Sheckles, 996 F.3d 330,
340 (6th Cir. 2021). A drug dealer’s “status alone” is not enough to establish probable cause to
search his residence. United States v. Reed, 993 F.3d 441, 448 (6th Cir. 2021). But the government
has grounds to search a known drug dealer’s residence when the dealer is “engaged in continual
and ongoing operations typically involving large amounts of drugs.” United States v. Sanders,
106 F.4th 455, 466 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (citation omitted). In these circumstances, a judge
can “infer that drug traffickers use their homes to store drugs and otherwise further their drug
trafficking.” United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683, 687 (6th Cir. 2008). A warrant affidavit
-3- No. 24-3906, United States v. Bradley
fortifies this inference when it provides additional evidence connecting the dealer’s operations to
the residence. See Sheckles, 996 F.3d at 341-42.
Bradley was a known drug dealer engaged in continuous and ongoing trafficking
operations. Three informants told police that Bradley sold cocaine and methamphetamine.
Police corroborated these tips by using an informant to purchase drugs from Bradley twice.
Bradley regularly updated this informant on his efforts to secure additional drug shipments. And
Bradley distributed these drugs in large quantities: he offered to sell one informant one pound of
methamphetamine and reportedly sold a “half a brick” of cocaine to another.
Moreover, Bradley listed the house’s address on his car registration, which gave police
“good reason to think that [Bradley] had some substantial connection to that address.” United
States v. Jones, 817 F.3d 489, 491 (6th Cir. 2016). And when police conducted a controlled
delivery of a methamphetamine package to the Nicholas Place house, Bradley walked out, picked
up the package, and threw it in the trash can—hardly the behavior of a house guest. In addition,
in the weeks leading up to the search, the police saw Bradley come or go from the house, including
late at night.
Bradley asserts he no longer lived at Nicholas Place on the night of the search. Specifically,
he says that his ex-girlfriend lived in the house, that he had broken up with her and moved out, and
that he stayed there overnight only to visit his daughter. But Bradley cites nothing in the record
that would have given the police any reason to make that distinction between resident and frequent
overnight guest. And the Fourth Amendment requires officers to act only “reasonably,” not
“flawlessly.” United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1524 (6th Cir. 1996).
-4- No. 24-3906, United States v. Bradley
Meanwhile, the warrant affidavit recited evidence linking Bradley’s drug operation to the
Nicholas Place house.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0480n.06
No. 24-3906
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Oct 20, 2025 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED ) v. STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE ) NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ) PATRICK BRADLEY, ) Defendant-Appellant. OPINION ) )
Before: KETHLEDGE, LARSEN, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Patrick Bradley appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion to suppress drug-trafficking evidence that the police found at his residence. We reject his
arguments and affirm.
I.
In January 2020, Ohio police intercepted a package containing one pound of
methamphetamine on its way to a house on Nicholas Place in Canton, Ohio. The package was
addressed to “Cindy Williams.” Law enforcement conducted a controlled delivery of the drugs,
leaving the package on the doorstep after no one answered the door. Patrick Bradley soon walked
out of the house, picked up the package, and put it in a trash can. No. 24-3906, United States v. Bradley
Later that year, three informants told police that Bradley was selling methamphetamine
and cocaine. An FBI task force then placed Bradley under surveillance.
In November 2020, Bradley sold two ounces of cocaine to a police informant. The
informant met with Bradley four times to make installment payments for the drugs. On one
occasion, Bradley left the house on Nicholas Place to meet the informant for payment; on another,
Bradley met the informant to receive payment and then returned to that same house. When he met
the informant, Bradley drove a car registered to the Nicholas Place address.
Bradley again sold drugs to the police informant two months later. He and the informant
spent a day haggling over the sale via call and text. Bradley made one of these calls from the
Nicholas Place house. Bradley offered to sell the informant one pound of methamphetamine; the
informant told Bradley that he wanted only an ounce. That evening, Bradley left Nicholas Place,
made several stops around Canton, and then met the informant to sell him the methamphetamine.
He again returned to the Nicholas Place house.
Ohio police applied for a warrant to search the house for drugs, drug proceeds, and other
evidence of drug trafficking. A state judge granted the warrant that night. Police executed the
search just after midnight, seizing nearly 300 grams of methamphetamine, 144 grams of cocaine,
52 grams of MDMA, and 33 grams of an MDMA and cocaine mixture from the home.
A grand jury thereafter indicted Bradley on three counts of possession with intent to
distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and
(b)(1)(C). Bradley moved to suppress the evidence found at the Nicholas Place house, arguing
that the warrant was not supported by probable cause. The district court denied that motion and a
motion for reconsideration.
-2- No. 24-3906, United States v. Bradley
Shortly before trial, the government produced cellphone data that police had seized from
one of Bradley’s phones. At trial, a jury convicted Bradley on all counts. In January 2024, Bradley
moved to reopen his suppression hearing. The court denied the motion. Bradley filed another
such motion in September 2024, three days before his sentencing hearing. The court denied that
motion and struck it from the record. The court then sentenced Bradley to 210 months in prison.
This appeal followed.
II.
A.
Bradley challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We review the
district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo, viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s decision. See United States v. Russell, 26 F.4th
371, 374 (6th Cir. 2022). Our review of the state judge’s decision to grant the warrant is likewise
deferential. See United States v. Brown, 732 F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2013).
Bradley argues that the police lacked probable cause to search the Nicholas Place house.
Probable cause for a search warrant exists when there is a “fair probability that the specific place
to be searched contained the specific things to be seized.” United States v. Sheckles, 996 F.3d 330,
340 (6th Cir. 2021). A drug dealer’s “status alone” is not enough to establish probable cause to
search his residence. United States v. Reed, 993 F.3d 441, 448 (6th Cir. 2021). But the government
has grounds to search a known drug dealer’s residence when the dealer is “engaged in continual
and ongoing operations typically involving large amounts of drugs.” United States v. Sanders,
106 F.4th 455, 466 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc) (citation omitted). In these circumstances, a judge
can “infer that drug traffickers use their homes to store drugs and otherwise further their drug
trafficking.” United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683, 687 (6th Cir. 2008). A warrant affidavit
-3- No. 24-3906, United States v. Bradley
fortifies this inference when it provides additional evidence connecting the dealer’s operations to
the residence. See Sheckles, 996 F.3d at 341-42.
Bradley was a known drug dealer engaged in continuous and ongoing trafficking
operations. Three informants told police that Bradley sold cocaine and methamphetamine.
Police corroborated these tips by using an informant to purchase drugs from Bradley twice.
Bradley regularly updated this informant on his efforts to secure additional drug shipments. And
Bradley distributed these drugs in large quantities: he offered to sell one informant one pound of
methamphetamine and reportedly sold a “half a brick” of cocaine to another.
Moreover, Bradley listed the house’s address on his car registration, which gave police
“good reason to think that [Bradley] had some substantial connection to that address.” United
States v. Jones, 817 F.3d 489, 491 (6th Cir. 2016). And when police conducted a controlled
delivery of a methamphetamine package to the Nicholas Place house, Bradley walked out, picked
up the package, and threw it in the trash can—hardly the behavior of a house guest. In addition,
in the weeks leading up to the search, the police saw Bradley come or go from the house, including
late at night.
Bradley asserts he no longer lived at Nicholas Place on the night of the search. Specifically,
he says that his ex-girlfriend lived in the house, that he had broken up with her and moved out, and
that he stayed there overnight only to visit his daughter. But Bradley cites nothing in the record
that would have given the police any reason to make that distinction between resident and frequent
overnight guest. And the Fourth Amendment requires officers to act only “reasonably,” not
“flawlessly.” United States v. Rohrig, 98 F.3d 1506, 1524 (6th Cir. 1996).
-4- No. 24-3906, United States v. Bradley
Meanwhile, the warrant affidavit recited evidence linking Bradley’s drug operation to the
Nicholas Place house. For example, on the same night as the police search, Bradley called the
informant from the house to arrange a drug sale, and told the informant—in code—that his
methamphetamine shipment had arrived. This call yielded an inference that he used the house for
his drug-related activities. See Sheckles, 996 F.3d at 342. In addition, more than once the police
observed Bradley return to the home after drug transactions; and in one such transaction,
Bradley received payment from the police informant for drugs. The police therefore had reason
to think they would find proceeds and other drug-related evidence there. See Sanders, 106 F.4th
at 463. The district court correctly denied Bradley’s motion to suppress.
B.
Bradley argues that the district court should have reopened his suppression hearing. We
review that decision for an abuse of discretion, bearing in mind that courts should be “extremely
reluctant” to grant such motions. See United States v. Pittman, 816 F.3d 419, 424 (6th Cir. 2016)
(cleaned up).
Bradley’s argument is nearly frivolous. His underlying contention is that the government
should have produced “extraction” data for one of his cellphones before his suppression hearing
rather than after it. But Bradley’s trial counsel undisputedly received that data from the
government nearly a year before he brought his motion to reopen on that ground. And in the
meantime, the court had conducted a trial in which a jury had convicted Bradley. Thus, to
understate matters, his motion was untimely. See id. And Bradley’s substantive argument to our
court, at least, is meritless. Specifically, he says this data showed that two calls referenced in the
warrant affidavit (between Bradley and the informant) “did not happen”—because those calls were
not included in the data extracted from his phone. But Bradley’s trial counsel more candidly
-5- No. 24-3906, United States v. Bradley
admitted that the absence of those calls from that data would not “change the outcome of the
suppression issue”—because Bradley also had four other cellphones whose data the government
could not extract. Finally, in support of his motion to reopen, Bradley makes in our court one
factbound argument that he did not make to the district court. Suffice it to say that this argument,
like his other ones here, does not remotely show that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motions.
* * *
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
-6-