UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANTWONE MIGUEL SANDERS - Articles

All Content

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ANTWONE MIGUEL SANDERS

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Jun 28, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED EN BANC: Jarrod J. Beck, LAW OFFICE OF JARROD J. BECK, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED EN BANC: Sofia M. Vickery, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Attorneys 3: ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Jarrod J. Beck, LAW OFFICE OF JARROD J. BECK, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF: Sofia M. Vickery, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., Charles P. Wisdom, Jr., Lauren Tanner Bradley, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; MOORE, CLAY, GIBBONS, GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, STRANCH, THAPAR, BUSH, LARSEN, NALBANDIAN, READLER, MURPHY, DAVIS, MATHIS, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: On Petition for Rehearing En Banc. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. A confidential informant notified officers that Antwone Sanders was dealing drugs from a nearby apartment. The informant then engaged in two controlled drug buys with Sanders. On both occasions, officers observed Sanders drive from the buy location to the apartment in question. The officers detailed this information in an affidavit submitted to a judge and secured a warrant to search the apartment. The search unearthed contraband sufficient to support several federal gun and drug possession charges. Sanders moved to suppress the discovered items. When his motion was denied, Sanders pleaded guilty, preserving in part his right to appeal, which he then exercised.

Longstanding Fourth Amendment principles guide our review of the search warrant’s propriety. One, we examine the underlying officer affidavit with the understanding that demonstrating probable cause to justify a search does not require mathematical certainty. Two, we owe deference to the judge who found sufficient cause to issue the warrant. Viewing Sanders’s appeal in this way, we see no error in the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. Nor did the district court err by denying Sanders’s discovery requests. Accordingly, we affirm.

Attachments: