United States v. Gregory Redden

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0619n.06
No. 11-5660
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Jun 13, 2012
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE WESTERN
GREGORY L. REDDEN, ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
BEFORE: BOGGS and COLE, Circuit Judges; OLIVER, Chief District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Gregory L. Redden appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to
suppress.
On January 3, 2010, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Redden’s motel
room and discovered counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes and counterfeiting equipment. Redden was
charged with conspiring to manufacture and possess counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes,
manufacturing counterfeit Federal Reserve Notes, and possessing counterfeit federal reserve notes,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 471, and 472. After the district court denied Redden’s motion to
suppress the evidence seized during the search of his motel room, he pleaded guilty to the charges
against him. The district court sentenced him to three concurrent prison terms of forty-one months.
*
The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
No. 11-5660
United States v. Redden
On appeal, Redden argues that the search warrant was invalid because the supporting
affidavit lacked probable cause and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule should not
apply. When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the district court’s factual
findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. McCraney, 674 F.3d 614,
616 (6th Cir. 2012). “The Fourth Amendment mandates that a search warrant may only be issued
upon a showing of probable cause.” United States v. Thomas, 605 F.3d 300, 307 (6th Cir. 2010).
“Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability . . . that contraband or evidence of a crime will
be found in a particular place.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
When reviewing the sufficiency of a search warrant affidavit, we consider “whether the
totality of the circumstances supports a finding of probable cause, rather than engaging in line-by-
line scrutiny.” United States v. Woosley, 361 F.3d 924, 926 (6th Cir. 2004). “[W]here a known
person, named to the magistrate, to whose reliability an officer attests with some detail, states that
he has seen a particular crime and particular evidence, in the recent past, a neutral and detached
magistrate may believe that evidence of a crime will be found.” Id. (quoting United States v. Allen,
211 F.3d 970, 976 (6th Cir. 2000) (en banc)).
Here, the affidavit supporting the search warrant stated that, during the previous twenty-four
hours, the officer seeking the warrant had been working on a case involving the making of
counterfeit money. The affidavit, while not a model of grammar, also stated that the officer was
working with a citizen informant who had provided credible information in previous cases “that got
convictions. Mr. Redden have equipment at River Heights Motel Room #121 which is used to make
counterfeit money.” While the affidavit could have been more explicit in its terms, it reasonably
conveyed that the officer received information from the informant, whose identity was disclosed to
-2-
No. 11-5660
United States v. Redden
the judge who issued the search warrant, that Redden had counterfeiting equipment in his motel
room. Under the totality of the circumstances, the judge who issued the search warrant had a
substantial basis for finding that the affidavit established probable cause to believe that evidence of
counterfeiting would be found in Redden’s motel room. See id. Further, even if the search warrant
were deficient, the evidence obtained during the search was admissible under the good-faith
exception to the exclusionary rule because, despite Redden’s argument to the contrary, there is no
evidence that the issuing judge abandoned his neutral and detached role, and the affidavit was not
so lacking in probable cause that belief in its existence was objectively unreasonable. See Thomas,
605 F.3d at 311.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Redden’s motion to suppress.
-3-