CA6: The SW affidavit here was thin, but it wasn’t completely bare bones, so GFE applies

After controlled buys from defendant’s house, two separate police departments prepared search warrants for his place, and they were presented together. One was signed. Defendant moved to suppress contending there was no probable cause and it was so lacking that the good faith exception did not apply. The local police practice here was to minimize information about the CI to protect his identity from the accused including a clear reference to time. The USMJ recommended granting the motion because probable cause was lacking and it was bare bones, so no good faith exception. Granting that there was no probable cause, it was not bare bones. There was something here, and it at least supported the good faith exception. United States v. Barbour, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 16376 (6th Cir. June 4, 2026):

An affidavit is bare bones if it is “conclusory” and contains only a guess that evidence of a crime would be found. United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 496 (6th Cir. 2017). An affidavit is not bare bones, however, when it falls short of establishing probable cause but contains a “minimally sufficient nexus” between the criminal activity and the place to be searched. United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 596 (6th Cir. 2004). When there is a “modicum of evidence, however slight” showing “some connection, regardless of how remote,” a “minimally sufficient nexus” exists. Sanders, 106 F.4th at 469 (citation modified).

Though it lacked probable cause, the affidavit supporting Coffee County’s search warrant passes this less demanding test when viewed in the light most favorable to the district court’s decision. See Frazier, 423 F.3d at 531, 536. The affidavit detailed the investigation into Barbour’s suspected drug dealing: a confidential informant told officers that “a black male subject named Johnny” was selling methamphetamine out of the Helen Street residence, and a confidential informant subsequently twice observed drug transactions inside the Helen Street residence. … This information, taken together, shows at least a “minimally sufficient nexus” connecting Barbour’s drug trafficking activity and the Helen Street residence. See Sanders, 106 F.4th at 469 (citation modified).

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.