United States v. Sumlin

Decision Date21 April 2020
Docket NumberNo. 18-3819,18-3819
Citation956 F.3d 879
Parties UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan K. SUMLIN, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

ON BRIEF: Mark Wettle, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant. Matthew B. Kall, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

Before: GIBBONS, KETHLEDGE, BUSH, Circuit Judges.

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge.

Ryan Sumlin appeals his conviction for distribution of drugs that caused the death of Carrie Dobbins, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), which carries enhanced penalty provisions. Sumlin argues that the district court should have excluded evidence obtained from a search of his residence because the affidavit supporting the search warrant was invalid. He also contends that Amanda Kelly (Carrie’s sister and Sumlin’s ex-girlfriend who had bought drugs from him) should not have been allowed to provide certain testimony about his past relationship with Carrie.1 Finally, Sumlin claims that there was insufficient evidence to show that he distributed the drugs that caused Carrie’s death.

For the reasons outlined below, we find that (1) the district court properly denied Sumlin’s suppression motion, given that the affidavit established a sufficient nexus between his drug trafficking activity and residence; (2) the court properly admitted Kelly’s testimony, as it was intrinsic proof that was relevant for providing background information and contextualizing the government’s case against Sumlin; and (3) sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict that Sumlin distributed the drugs that caused Carrie’s death. Therefore, we AFFIRM .

I.

This case arises from the fatal drug overdose of Carrie Dobbins in Akron, Ohio, on March 28, 2015. Carrie’s mother, Julie Dobbins, found her daughter’s lifeless body in the basement of her home. For years, Carrie had struggled with heroin addiction. On the day of her death, Carrie had ingested a lethal level and combination of drugs. It was a mixture that has tragically become far too common—heroine and fentanyl.

The chain of events leading to the overdose began in the early morning hours of that day. Specifically, at 6:09 a.m., Carrie texted the telephone number (330) 815-4514, asking if "TJ" could come "see" her. The number that Carrie texted was Sumlin’s cellphone number, according to her sister, Amanda Kelly, who later cooperated with the police investigation. Kelly also identified "TJ" as Sumlin, a heroin dealer who employed this alias when dealing drugs. Kelly recounted that "TJ" had used a Facebook account under the name "RYO Boyer" and that the "About" section of this account listed "facebook.com/ryansumlin " as the contact email. Kelly knew this information about Sumlin because she was his ex-girlfriend and had purchased heroin from him. She also told police that Sumlin had dealt heroin to Carrie in the past.

In response to Carrie’s text, Sumlin texted back "how much," to which she responded "35." (R. 177: Schmidt Trans., PageID 1404–14 & Exhibit 140, PageID 1655). Sumlin texted his agreement, notifying Carrie that he was "on[ ] [his] way" to her mother’s house. (Id .). Carrie then texted for Sumlin to wait until her mother had left for work, which would be around 6:45 a.m. Carrie also instructed him to park on the side street next to the house to avoid detection.

When Julie Dobbins left for work that morning, she noticed a dark-colored Chrysler, matching the description of Sumlin’s car, parked on the side street next to her house. At approximately 8:45 a.m. that same morning, Kelly arrived at her mother’s house. A vehicle that Kelly identified as Sumlin’s car—a Chrysler 300 with tinted windows—was parked in the driveway. Upon entering the house, Kelly saw Sumlin with Carrie in the living room.

Following Carrie’s death, and between the span of April 24, 2015 and April 27, 2015, Akron Police Department Detective Mike Schmidt visited an address believed to be Sumlin’s residence on Firestone Boulevard in Akron. Detective Schmidt saw a Chrysler 300—the same model of car seen by Amanda Kelly and Julie Dobbins on the morning of March 28, 2015—parked in the driveway of the Firestone Boulevard address. Although the car was registered to Sumlin’s mother, police records confirmed that Sumlin had been arrested while driving the vehicle in 2014. Further investigation revealed that the utilities of the Firestone Boulevard residence were paid for by Sumlin’s then-current girlfriend. Also, according to a police report stemming from an unrelated assault complaint filed in April 2015, Sumlin was identified as living there with this girlfriend. Additional police records from prior years, relating to Sumlin’s arrests for the possession of heroin, the possession of cocaine, parole violations, failure to comply with police, and willful fleeing, further connected him to the Firestone Boulevard property.

Aware of these facts, the police turned their focus on Sumlin as a suspect. Based on his personal experience and training,2 Detective Schmidt prepared an affidavit using the information obtained from the police investigation, including interviews with Julie Dobbins, Amanda Kelly, Dr. George Sterbenz,3 and Akron Detective Benjamin Surblis,4 to obtain a search warrant for the Firestone Boulevard residence.

The affidavit sought authority to search for any evidence relating to drug trafficking, which could include heroin, currency, records and documents, and cellular telephones. Detective Schmidt was particularly focused on locating the (330) 815-4524 telephone, which Sumlin used to communicate with Dobbins on the morning of March 28, 2015. On April 27, 2015, the warrant was approved by Akron Municipal Court Judge Jerry K. Larson. The following day, the Akron police executed the search warrant. Officers seized a number of items, including approximately 190 grams of then-suspected cocaine (which upon further testing, was determined to be fentanyl), 48 grams of suspected heroin; drug trafficking paraphernalia (i.e. multiple scales, a press, a grinder, glassware with residue); $11,920 cash in one location; $2,482 in another location; and eight cellular telephones.

On August 26, 2015, a grand jury initially indicted Sumlin for drug trafficking. On August 17, 2016, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment against Sumlin and several others. After Sumlin’s co-defendants pleaded guilty, the grand jury returned a supplemental indictment against Sumlin. This indictment charged Sumlin with the following: (1) distribution of drugs on March 28, 2015 that caused Carrie’s death, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(c), which also triggered the enhanced penalty provision for drug distribution causing death; (2) possession of fentanyl with the intent to distribute on April 28, 2015, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) ; and (3) possession of heroin with the intent to distribute on October 9, 2015, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B).

On June 18, 2017, Sumlin filed a motion to suppress the government’s evidence that provided the foundational basis for these charges. After Sumlin waived a hearing on his suppression motion, the district court denied the motion on August 30, 2017. Finding the search warrant valid, the district court concluded that the government’s supporting affidavit established a sufficiently strong nexus between Sumlin’s residence and the drug activities being investigated by the police. Because the government had shown probable cause for the search warrant, the district court held that Sumlin’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, had not been violated. Alternatively, the court held that even if the affidavit had not provided a sufficient basis for probable cause, the evidence should not be excluded based on United States v. Leon , 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), because it still would have been reasonable for the police to rely on the warrant in good faith.

Following the district court’s denial of Sumlin’s motion to suppress, Sumlin was tried on April 24-30, 2017, and a jury convicted him of all three counts charged on the indictment. On May 24, 2017, the district court sentenced Sumlin to a term of life imprisonment, as well as a six-year term of supervised release. In accordance with the court’s rulings, an amended judgment was entered on May 26, 2017. This timely appeal followed.

II.
A. Validity of the Search Warrant

Sumlin challenges the search warrant as inadequate under the Fourth Amendment, which provides that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. This constitutional protection, applicable here through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that a warrant to search a residence be supported by an application showing probable cause. The affidavit supporting the warrant must contain facts that demonstrate "a fair probability that evidence of a crime will be located on the premises of the proposed search." United States v. Jenkins , 396 F.3d 751, 760 (6th Cir. 2005) ; United States v. Frazier , 423 F.3d 526. 531 (6th Cir. 2005). If "a government agent fails to support his application with this showing of probable cause, a judge should refuse to issue the warrant." United States v. McCoy , 905 F.3d 409, 415 (6th Cir. 2018). "Our review of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting probable cause is limited to the information presented in the four-corners of the affidavit[.]" Frazier , 423 F.3d at 531. Nonetheless, because "the probable cause standard is a ‘practical, non-technical conception’ that deals with the ‘factual and practical considerations of everyday life," Frazier , 423 F.3d at 531 (citation omitted), a finding that probable cause exists can "depend[ ] on the totality of the circumstances." Id.

Sumlin...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • United States v. Sheckles
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 30 de abril de 2021
    ...have repeatedly noted that "[i]n the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live." United States v. Sumlin , 956 F.3d 879, 886 (6th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Conflict? No, we have reconciled our cases in fact-specific ways. See Reed , 993 F.3d at 448-50.......
  • United States v. Reed
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 1 de abril de 2021
    ...evidence of a drug dealer's ongoing drug activity can sometimes create this nexus to search the dealer's home. United States v. Sumlin , 956 F.3d 879, 886 (6th Cir. 2020). It can be difficult to decide which of these principles controls. The judicial disagreement in this case over whether t......
  • United States v. Hofstetter
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 11 de abril de 2022
    ...to the background of the charged offense, known as ‘res gestae evidence,’ is also considered ‘intrinsic ....’ " United States v. Sumlin , 956 F.3d 879, 889–90 (6th Cir. 2020). "Typically, such evidence is a prelude to the charged offense, is directly probative of the charged offense, arises......
  • United States v. Sanders
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 6 de fevereiro de 2023
    ... ... found there , rather than in some other place." ... Carpenter , 360 F.3d at 594. In determining that ... probable cause supported the search warrant, the district ... court improperly relied on United States v. Sumlin , ... 956 F.3d 879 (6th Cir. 2020), to draw an inference about ... nexus. Based on Sumlin , the district court reasoned ... that it is sufficient for the nexus requirement in a probable ... cause determination if the affidavit contains claims that ... "(1) a person is ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT