United States v. Abdalla

• Decision Date: 27 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. 19-5967,19-5967
• Citation: United States v. Abdalla, 972 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2020)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samer Walid ABDALLA, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

972 F.3d 838

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Samer Walid ABDALLA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 19-5967

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: August 4, 2020

Decided and Filed: August 27, 2020

ARGUED: Andrew C. Brandon, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.Sofia M. Vickery, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.ON BRIEF: Andrew C. Brandon, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.Sofia M. Vickery, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., Robert McGuire, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Before: ROGERS, KETHLEDGE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge.

Challenges to warrants based on typographical errors or factual inaccuracies typically fall under this Circuit's clerical error exception.We have consistently found that inadvertent drafting mistakes, for instance transposing a number in a street address or listing an incorrect nearby address, do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.That is because those errors create little risk of a mistaken search or a general warrant granting police an unconstitutionally broad authority to conduct searches.

But DefendantSamer Abdalla contends that this case does not involve a regular clerical error.The Tennessee judge who signed the warrant permitting officers to search Abdalla's residence on New Hope Road only had jurisdiction in DeKalb County.But the warrant, in one place, listed an address on Carey Road in Trousdale County, Tennessee.This error resulted from the drafting officer's using a previous warrant as a template and failing to erase all vestiges of that document.As a result, the warrant permitting officers to search Abdalla's residence listed the wrong address, including the wrong county, in the authorization paragraph despite accurately describing Abdalla's home.

Abdalla makes much of this mistake.He argues that a warrant cannot be valid if it contains a mismatch between the residence in the authorization section and the residence that the police searched.Along with this theory of invalid formation, Abdalla also asserts that a judge's failure to notice an address outside his jurisdiction in a warrant's authorization section demands the inference that the judge impermissibly rubberstamped the warrant.Yet the affidavit supporting the warrant listed the correct address and county at the top of the first page.And the warrant itself directed officers to the correct address by providing step-by-step directions along with a detailed description of Abdalla's residence.So the warrant's singular incorrect address posed almost no chance of a mistaken search.Despite the government's irregular mistake, this clerical error case demands the usual result for technical mistakes that threaten no constitutional harm.We AFFIRM.

I.

In February 2017, the Tennessee Judicial Drug Task Force and the Drug Enforcement Administration began investigating Abdalla for suspected narcotics trafficking.Investigators used a confidential informant to execute a series of controlled drug buys from Abdalla's residence.Agent Brandon Gooch then submitted a written application and affidavit for a warrant to search Abdalla's residence on New Hope Road for evidence of drug crimes.That affidavit described how officers prearranged the controlled drug buys from Abdalla and monitored the confidential informant during the process.The affidavit also listed Abdalla's correct street address, along with descriptions of his home and evidence that the police expected to find.Based on that information, Agent Gooch concluded that probable cause justified searching Abdalla's property.

After reviewing the affidavit, Judge Patterson, who had jurisdiction in DeKalb County, Tennessee, issued a warrant on June 8 authorizing officers to search Abdalla's residence.Like the affidavit, this warrant gave detailed directions to Abdalla's property and contained unique identifiers of Abdalla's residence, such as his trailer's color, the property's layout, an American flag in front of the home, and an auto detail sign at the driveway's entrance.This description at the beginning of the warrant correctly directed officers to Abdalla's precise New Hope Road address in DeKalb County.But the warrant's final paragraph "commanded" officers "to search the ... premises located at 245 Carey Road, Hartsville, Trousdale Tennessee."(R. 20-1, Search Warrant, Page ID # 59.)Agent Gooch testified that the Carey Road address came from using a previous warrant as a template.Although Judge Patterson had jurisdiction over Abdalla's residence in DeKalb County, he lacked jurisdiction in Trousdale County, which encompassed the Carey Road property listed on the warrant's final page.

Despite that error, Agent Gooch led approximately eighteen other officers on June 9 to the New Hope Road address to execute the search.The officers arrived at Abdalla's residence in DeKalb County and loudly announced their presence.But no one responded.So officers entered Abdalla's home by force and found him, along with his girlfriend, in bed.Despite the officers’ commands for the two to put their hands up, the couple failed to comply.With the pair unresponsive, one officer tried to remove Abdalla's girlfriend from the bed.That caused Abdalla to spring up and "lunge[ ] with a fist" towards the officers.(R. 104, Sentencing Tr., Page ID # 713.)The officers repeatedly told Abdalla to show them his hands and to settle down, but Abdalla did not comply.Bizarrely, Abdalla took a sheet from the bed and tried to hide under it.After officers removed the sheet, Abdalla remained aggressive.So the officers warned Abdalla that they would use a taser.But the threats, along with a malfunctioning taser, failed to dissuade Abdalla.The scuffle turned into Abdalla's wrestling with the officers and then attempting to grab an officer's rifle.After officers successfully placed a plastic restraint on Abdalla, he broke free.Officers later testified that they had never seen anyone break free of a plastic restraint.Then, despite Abdalla's attempts to bite them, officers successfully handcuffed Abdalla.After the struggle, officers asked Abdalla if he had any contagious diseases; Abdalla immediately and coherently replied that he had hepatitis C.

During the search, officers located and seized drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearms.In a post-arrest interview twelve minutes after the raid, Abdalla admitted that most of the contraband belonged to him.In another interview three days later, Abdalla claimed that he was so high during the search that he believed he was "in a video game" while fighting the officers.(R. 52, Tr. of Proceedings, Page ID # 325.)He also denied any memory of physically engaging the officers.But Abdalla confirmed that the guns and drugs belonged to him.

The government indicted Abdalla for being a felon in possession of a firearm and the parties discussed a plea agreement.Then Abdalla moved to suppress evidence collected in the search, challenging the warrant's validity.He also sought a Franks hearing to evaluate statements made in the affidavit supporting the warrant.Abdalla argued, among many claims, that: (1) the warrant lacked probable cause and was invalid because it authorized a search at the wrong address, (2) the affidavit failed to show the confidential informant's veracity, (3) Abdalla did not give a knowing and voluntary Miranda waiver, and (4) the warrant and affidavit contained material omissions and misstatements.After a suppression hearing, the district court granted suppression of Abdalla's statements made immediately after his arrest on June 9 due to a Miranda violation, but rejected all of Abdalla's other claims.

After this ruling, Abdalla's counsel discovered details about the confidential informant that put the informant's credibility in question.The informant had committed many serious crimes, including theft and domestic assault, suffered from heroin addiction, and received compensation for executing controlled buys.The government never disclosed that information to Abdalla's counsel, according to the district court, even though it should have.So Abdalla asked the district court to revisit the evidentiary suppression and Franks issue.But the district court denied that motion.

After the government filed a superseding indictment, Abdalla entered a conditional guilty plea.Between the superseding indictment and the sentencing hearing, the case moved from Judge Crenshaw to Judge Richardson.Before sentencing, the presentence report recommended a six-level Guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G § 3A1.2(c)(1) for assaulting officers.Abdalla disagreed, finding the enhancement inapplicable because he lacked the mens rea during the conflict to knowingly attack an officer, given that he thought he was in a video game.Abdalla also noted that Judge Crenshaw had found that he lacked mens rea to knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights when talking to officers after the search.So Abdalla reasoned that Judge Crenshaw's Miranda ruling acted as law-of-the-case, compelling Judge Richardson to find that Abdalla lacked the mens rea to knowingly assault a police officer.The district court rejected that argument and imposed a 168-month sentence.Abdalla now challenges that sentencing decision, along with the district court's denial of his motion to suppress.

II.

Abdalla argues that the district court wrongly denied his motion to suppress evidence of guns and drugs seized at his residence because the government relied on a defective warrant to execute the search."[T]he text of the Fourth Amendment does not specify when a search warrant must be obtained."Birchfield v. North Dakota , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S. Ct. 2160, 2173, 195 L.Ed.2d 560(2016)(alteration in original)(quotingKentucky v....