United States v. Jenkins

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RUSSELL JENKINS, Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 6:19-CR-73-CHB-HAI-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London)

April 21, 2020

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION*** *** *** ***

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Russell Jenkins's Objection to the Recommended Disposition of the Motion to Suppress ("Objections") [R. 80] wherein Judge Ingram recommended that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Suppress and request for a Franks hearing. [R. 79] The Motion to Suppress [R. 33], along with a Supplemental Brief [R. 38] that Magistrate Judge Ingram ordered Defendant to file [R. 37], sought to exclude all evidence and statements obtained by law enforcement following the execution of a search warrant at his residence on January 3, 2018. The matter is now ripe for the Court's review. This Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommended Disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis and because the Defendant's Objections otherwise fail to rebut the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge, the Recommended Disposition will be accepted as the opinion of the Court.

The Recommended Disposition found that there was no basis for suppression of the evidence in question and no grounds for a hearing. [R. 79] Defendant Russell Jenkins ("Defendant" or "Jenkins") made a series of objections to Judge Ingram's ruling: the search warrant affidavit contains "discrepancies" sufficient to warrant a Franks hearing; a hearing should be granted based upon "ambiguity" and omissions in the search warrant affidavit; the search warrant affidavit failed to establish a nexus between any drug activity and Defendant's home; the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule should not apply; and Defendant did not waive (or fail to support) his argument that his statements to law enforcement were involuntary. [R. 80] These Objections are addressed in turn below.¹

I. Objections

A. Request for a Hearing

Defendant first objects to Magistrate Judge Ingram's recommendation that his request for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) be denied. [R. 80 pp. 3-9] Defendant claims that discrepancies exist between the affidavit in support of a search warrant for his home and the police case report. He argues these discrepancies show that statements made in the affidavit were deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth. [R. 38 pp. 3-5; R. 80 pp. 4-7] The affidavit in question, submitted by Kentucky State Police Detective Benjamine Graves, reads as follows:

The affiant has information that Russell Jenkins is living at 654 South HWY 1223 in Corbin Kentucky. The affiant has received information that Jenkins is distributing Oxycodone in Laurel County. I have spoken with a source of information that advised Jenkins is obtaining Oxycodone pills from a source of supply in Michigan. The source who[se] information I have found to be reliable from past investigations stated He/She had purchased Oxycodone from Jenkins in the past. I have also conducted two controlled purchases where Oxycodone 30MG pills were purchased from Charles Chadwell. I have information that Chadwell was obtaining Oxycodone pills from Jenkins. During both controlled purchases Chadwell was operating a vehicle owned by Jenkins. On Jan 3, 201[8] I observed the vehicle that Chadwell was operating when the controlled purchases were conducted setting [sic] in the driveway at 654 South HWY 1223 in Corbin Ky. While conducting surveillance I observed Chadwell on the property of the residence. A short time later I observed Chadwell get into the vehicle and leave the residence. I had learned from the investigation on Chadwell that he had a suspended license. The Affiant and Tpr Chris Saunders U/930 conducted a traffic stop on the vehicle because Chadwell was operating the vehicle. During the traffic stop Troopers located 96 Oxycodone 30 MG tablets on Chadwells person. Chadwell advised he obtained the pills from Jenkins that day and confirmed the residence he had come from was Jenkins residence.

[R. 40-1 p. 2; R. 79 p. 4] (emphasis added). The affidavit also includes that Jenkins has a prior 2014 conviction for third-degree drug trafficking. [R. 79 p. 4] The case report, which Defendant claims shows falsities in the affidavit, states:

On Jan 3, 2018 I received a phone call from CI 11-351. The CI stated CHARLES CHADWELL AKA CHUCK was currently at RUSSELL JENKINS residence. The CI stated CHUCK was at the residence doing work for JENKINS but would be obtaining Oxycodone pills from JENKINS while he was there. The CI has provided information in the past that CHUCK would obtain 50 Oxycodone 30MG pills per day from JENKINS. The CI said CHUCK normally is at JENKINS residence during the day working for JENKINS and that during this time JENKINS also obtains Oxycodone pills. The CI stated CHUCK was driving the Ford F150 pickup truck that is registered to JENKINS. The CI stated the vehicle was the same one CHUCK was driving during both controlled purchases that I had previously conducted.

Around 15:30 hours on Jan 3, 201[8] I began conducting surveillance in the area of JENKINS residence at 654 south Hwy 1223 in Corbin Kentucky. During the time I was conducting surveillance I observed the vehicle CHUCK had been driving parked in the driveway at JENKINS residence. I also observed CHUCK cross the street and go over to some parked cars where it appeared that JENKINS was on a tractor. It appeared CHUCK, JENKINS and another male subject were removing an engine from a vehicle. Around 16:00 hours I observed CHUCK and the male subject leave JENKINS residence in the truck CHUCK has driven in the past. I observed CHUCK as the operator of the vehicle and had previous knowledge that CHUCK'S operator's license was suspended. I contacted TPR Chris Saunders U/930 to conduct a traffic stop on the vehicle. TPR Saunders was able to stop the vehicle on AG Road. During the traffic stop CHUCK was very nervous and was shaking. I asked CHUCK to step out of the vehicle. I asked CHUCK where he had come from and he stated JENKINS residence. I informed CHUCK that I knew he had been obtaining Oxycodone pills from JENKINS and that I had previously conducted multiple controlled purchases from him using a confidential informant. I asked CHUCK if he was obtaining Oxycodone from JENKINS and he stated yes. I asked CHUCK if he had any Oxycodone pills on his person or in the vehicle and he stated no and that I could search. I patted Chuck down and located an empty pill bottle in CHUCK'S pocket. The pill bottle was consistent in appearance with the bottle that CHUCK had removed the pills from when he had sold them to the CI when the controlled purchases were conducted. In chuck[']s other pocket I located a knife which I removed and a pack of cigarettes there was a small piece of a plastic baggie that was sticking out of the top of the cigarette pack. During the controlled purchases CHUCK would remove a small plastic bag from the pill bottle and the plastic bag would contain the Oxycodone pills he sold to the CI. When I removed the plastic bag [from] the cigarette pack I located a large amount of round blue pills in the plastic baggie. The pills were marked A 215 which I know through my training and experience to be consistent with the markings of Oxycodone 30MG pills these pills also had the same appearance and markings of the pills CHUCK had sold to the CI during the first controlled purchase.

I asked CHUCK where he had obtained the pills I had located on his person. CHUCK stated he had obtained the pills [from] JENKINS that day.

[R. 40-5 pp. 1-2; R. 79 pp. 4-5] (emphasis added).

Defendant argues that the affidavit's use of the word "residence" reflects (or at least implies) that Chadwell went inside Jenkins's house, whereas the case report reflects any transaction or meeting between the two took place outside or across the street from Jenkins's residence. [R. 80 p. 5] Judge Ingram found that a Franks hearing was not warranted because there was no contradiction between the case report and the affidavit. [R. 79 pp. 5-7] He found that the statement "I observed Chadwell on the property of the residence. A short time later I observed Chadwell get into the vehicle and leave the residence" did not contradict the case report because it did not say, as Defendant claims, that Chadwell went inside Defendant's house. Defendant also complains that Judge Ingram did not address his argument that failing to include that Chadwell crossed the street to meet Jenkins was a material omission made with reckless disregard for the truth sufficient to warrant a Franks hearing. [R. 80 pp. 4-5]

A defendant challenging an affidavit in support of a search warrant bears a heavy burden. Affidavits that support search warrants are entitled to a presumption of validity. United States v. Bateman, 945 F.3d 997, 1008 (6th Cir. 2019). To be entitled to a Franks hearing, the defendant must "1) make[ ] a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement or material omission in the affidavit; and 2) prove[ ] that the false statement or material omission is necessary to the probable cause finding in the affidavit." Id. (quoting United States v. Young, 847 F.3d 328, 348-49 (6th Cir. 2017)). An officer's statement is made with reckless disregard for the truth only if the defendant can show that the officer "subjectively entertain[ed] serious doubts as to the truth of his [or her] allegations." Id. (internal quotations omitted).

When it comes to omissions, a defendant's burden is even higher. "A Franks hearing may be merited when facts have been omitted in a warrant application, but only in rare instances." Mays v....