United States v. Abernathy
Decision Date | 08 December 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 16-5314,16-5314 |
Citation | 843 F.3d 243 |
Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Jimmy Jail Abernathy, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ON BRIEF: Mariah A. Wooten, Michael C. Holley, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Van Vincent, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.
Before: CLAY, KETHLEDGE, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.
CLAY, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which DONALD, J., joined. KETHLEDGE, J. (pg. ––––), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
Defendant Jimmy Jail Abernathy appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the district court on March 14, 2016, pursuant to Defendant's conditional guilty plea to two counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and one count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), wherein Defendant reserved the right to challenge the district court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence that the Nashville Police Department acquired from a search of Defendant's residence. We have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court's order denying Defendant's motion to suppress, and VACATE Defendant's convictions and sentence. We REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The relevant facts of this case are straightforward, and not in dispute. On April 26, 2013, Detectives Patrick Oakley, Henry Particelli ("Detective Particelli"), and Anthony Heil of the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department traveled to 5809 Tru Long Court in Antioch, Tennessee ("the residence" or "Defendant's residence"), where Defendant lived with his girlfriend. Once there, the Detectives searched the trashcans outside the residence looking for evidence connecting Defendant and his girlfriend to drug trafficking ("the trash pull"). Inside the trashcans, the Detectives found: (1) "Several Marijuana roaches1 with Marijuana residue inside;" (2) "Several plastic vacuumed packed heat sealed bags consistent to those used to package marijuana for resale containing marijuana residue with T22 markings;" (3) "USPS certified mail receipts addressed to Jimmy Jail Abernathy 5809 Tru Long Ct. Antioch TN [sic];" (4) mail belonging to Defendant's girlfriend; and (5) "One additional piece of mail addressed to ‘current resident’ " at the residence.
(R. 20–1, Search Warrant Affidavit, PageID #44.)
On the basis of this evidence, Detective Particelli applied to Judge Thomas Edward Nelson of the Metropolitan Nashville Davidson County General Sessions Court for a warrant to search Defendant's home and person. Detective Particelli submitted an affidavit in support of this warrant application (the "Affidavit"). The Affidavit contained form language stating that the Nashville Police Department had reason to believe that Defendant had violated the Tennessee RICO statute, the Tennessee money laundering statute, or the Tennessee Drug Control Act. The Affidavit also contained form language attesting that Detective Particelli had experience dealing with drug dealers, and detailing some common habits and practices of such dealers. Finally, the Affidavit contained a "Statement of Facts In Support of Probable Cause," which provided as follows:
(Id. PageID #43–44 (emphasis added).) Thus, although Defendant had a lengthy history of drug and weapons charges, that information was neither in the Affidavit, nor presented to Judge Nelson.
Judge Nelson granted Detective Particelli's warrant application on April 28, 2013 ("the Warrant"). On May 3, 2013, the Nashville Police Department searched Defendant's residence. The search revealed large quantities of cash, marijuana, cocaine, and firearms. Thereafter, on January 29, 2014, a federal grand jury indicted Defendant in the Middle District of Tennessee on four drug and weapons charges.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence that was seized when executing the Warrant, and also moved for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) to challenge the accuracy of certain representations made by Detective Particelli in the Affidavit. The district court denied the motion to suppress, determining that the Warrant was facially supported by probable cause. However, the district court granted the motion to conduct a Franks hearing.
At the Franks hearing, Defendant challenged Detective Particelli's statement in the Affidavit that he had "received information that the occupants of 5809 Tru Long Ct. Antioch, TN 37012 Davidson County have been and are currently engaging in illegal drug activity." Detective Particelli ultimately admitted that, when he submitted the Affidavit, he had: (1) no information that "somebody [was] selling [drugs] out of [Defendant's] residence;" (2) no direct evidence "that [Defendant] was trafficking drugs;" and (3) not seen Defendant "do anything connected to his house that might have to do with drugs." (R. 117, Suppression Hearing Transcript, PageID #553.) At the close of the hearing, the district court found that the statement violated Franks , and struck it from the Affidavit:
(Id. PageID #568–69.) The district court nonetheless upheld the Search Warrant, finding that the trash pull alone established probable cause:
THE COURT : I am finding that the trash pull alone raises probable cause and excise the first sentence, there is still probable cause in the affidavit search warrant based on the vacuum-packed, heat-sealed bags consistent to those used to package marijuana for resale containing marijuana residue with T2 markings. T2 is a known strain of marijuana, and it reflects it is within the last 72 hours. I am finding that the search warrant affidavit creates probable cause for Tennessee Drug Control Act of 1989 violation based on the trash pull. And I am not finding that the first sentence was intentionally misleading. It simply is misleading. And whether it was reckless, intentional or inadvertent, it is misleading and inaccurate information in the context of the search warrant and should be excised in terms of determining whether there is probable cause in the search warrant affidavit and the search warrant itself.
(Id. PageID # 569–70.)
After losing at the Franks hearing, Defendant pled guilty to all counts, but reserved the right in his plea agreement to appeal the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jamison v. McClendon
...is what remains after a joint, blunt, or marijuana cigarette has been smoked. It is akin to a cigarette butt." United States v. Abernathy , 843 F.3d 243, 247 n.1 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).31 When Officer McClendon was shown the cardboard tag during his deposition, it showed no sign......
-
United States v. Christian
...disclose whether the informant saw large quantities of drugs in Christian’s possession or in the Residence. See United States v. Abernathy , 843 F.3d 243, 255 (6th Cir. 2016) (noting that a large quantity of drugs found in a trash can outside of a residence would suggest "repeated and ongoi......
-
United States v. Christian
...disclose whether the informant saw large quantities of drugs in Christian’s possession or in the Residence. See United States v. Abernathy , 843 F.3d 243, 255 (6th Cir. 2016) (noting that a large quantity of drugs found in a trash can outside of a residence would suggest "repeated and ongoi......
-
State v. Dibble
...warrant applicant that is not presented to the issuing judge is irrelevant to a probable-cause determination. United States v. Abernathy , 843 F.3d 243, 249-250 (6th Cir.2016).{¶ 61} In some jurisdictions, courts are limited in probable-cause determinations to a review of the "four corners"......