Opinion and Order — United States v. Jamarri J. Price (Dkt. 24)

Summary

An Opinion and Order (Document 24) in United States of America v. Jamarri J. Price, Cause No. 1:23-CR-55-HAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, filed December 14, 2023 by Chief Judge Holly A. Brady. The defendant, indicted on two firearms-related counts, moves to suppress evidence from a search under a warrant. The court concludes that the warrant issued on August 7, 2023 was not supported by probable cause, finding no indicia of reliability for an anonymous tip. The motion to suppress remains under advisement while the parties brief the good-faith exception, with the defendant's brief due January 17, 2024 and the Government's reply due January 31, 2024.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cr-00055-HAB-SLC document 24 filed 12/14/23 page 1 of 8


                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
                                   FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                           )
                                                   )
v.                                                 )        Cause No. 1:23-CR-55-HAB
                                                   )
JAMARRI J. PRICE                                   )

                                        OPINION AND ORDER

        Defendant was indicted on two firearms-related counts after officers executed a search

warrant at a property on Gay Street in Fort Wayne, Indiana (“Gay Street Residence”). Defendant

now moves to suppress the evidence found at the Gay Street Residence, arguing that the search

warrant affidavit (“Affidavit”) fails to establish probable cause that contraband would be found

there. (ECF No. 17). That motion is now fully briefed (ECF Nos. 18, 20, 23) and ready for ruling.

I.      Factual Background

        When an “affidavit is the only evidence presented to the warrant-issuing magistrate, the

warrant must stand or fall solely on the contents of the affidavit.” United States v. Koerth, 312

F.3d 862, 866 (7th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). That’s the case here, so the Court will confine

its discussion of the facts to those in the Affidavit.

        In March 2023, an anonymous tip was received by the Crime Stoppers tip line.1 In

summary, the tip provided the following information:

        -        Defendant’s Instagram handle and phone number;

        -        Defendant sold drugs by having individuals “pull up somewhere around his house”

where he would meet them;




1
 Crime Stoppers is a local organization that allows members of the public to make anonymous tips via phone, app,
and on its website. See www.crimestoppersfw.org.
USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cr-00055-HAB-SLC document 24 filed 12/14/23 page 2 of 8


       -       Defendant got drugs from Detroit and then stored them at his mother’s house on

Gay Street;

       -       Defendant was usually armed with pistols and automatic weapons; and

       -       Defendant was affiliated with the RTL gang.

(ECF No. 17-1 at 1). The “tip narrative” stated:

       Jamarri Price, who is currently on probation, is selling pounds of marijuana out of
       his mother’s residence at XXXX Gay Street. He promotes it on his social media.
       His Instagram is @rackedupjp_. On there, he promotes the selling of weed and Perc
       30s, which is Fentanyl.

(Id. at 2). Two more anonymous tips were made on the Crime Stoppers tip line in May 2023, both

repeating that Defendant was advertising controlled substances for sale on his Instagram account.

The tips identified marijuana, fentanyl, and narcotic cough syrup as the drugs being advertised.

       In June 2023, Defendant was involved in an unrelated traffic stop while driving a black

Chevrolet Malibu. Officers smelled the “overpowering odor of marijuana” coming from the car

and asked Defendant to exit. During a resulting search, officers found a Glock pistol backplate.

Defendant told officers that a “friend” had removed the backplate so that the friend could install a

custom backplate. According to Det. M. Deshaies (“Deshaies”), the officer who drafted the

Affidavit, backplates are often removed from Glock pistols and replaced with “a manufactured

sear,” which converts the pistol to a fully automatic machine gun.

       At some point, Deshaies “conducted a social media investigation for” Defendant after

discovering that Defendant had a prior felony conviction and could not possess a firearm. Deshaies

found that the Instagram account identified in the March 2023 tip listed Defendant’s birthday and

confirmed that “jp,” the last two letters of the Instagram handle, were Defendant’s initials. Videos

associated with the account showed Defendant with a firearm, money, and what appeared to be

marijuana.

                                                   2
USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cr-00055-HAB-SLC document 24 filed 12/14/23 page 3 of 8


       Deshaies then reviewed more than a dozen Instagram posts made on the @rackedupjp_

from June through August 2023. Those posts showed Defendant with guns and money, suggested

that Defendant was selling and consuming narcotic cough syrup and marijuana, showed the same

Chevrolet Malibu involved in the June 2023 traffic stop, and referred to conversion switches used

to convert Glock pistols to automatic firearms. (Id. at 3-8). What the posts did not include was any

reference to or depiction of the Gay Street Residence.

       Based on his “social media investigation,” Deshaies sought a no-knock warrant for the Gay

Street Residence on August 7, 2023. The warrant was authorized by Allen County, Indiana,

Superior Court Magistrate Judge John Bohdan the same day. The parties did not provide the Court

with the warrant return, so the Court does not know what officers found during the search or who

executed the warrant.

II.    Legal Discussion

A.     Probable Cause Standard

       A search warrant affidavit establishes probable cause when “considering the totality of the

circumstances, there is sufficient evidence to cause a reasonably prudent person to believe that a

search will uncover evidence of a crime.” United States v. Harris, 464 F.3d 733, 737 (7th Cir.

2006). “Probable cause denotes more than a mere suspicion, but does not require certainty.” United

States v. Fleischli, 305 F.3d 643, 651 (7th Cir. 2002). In determining whether there is probable

cause to issue a search warrant, the judge’s task is “to make a practical, commonsense decision

whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, there is a fair probability

that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” United States v. Butler,

71 F.3d 243, 248–49 (7th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted).




                                                  3
USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cr-00055-HAB-SLC document 24 filed 12/14/23 page 4 of 8


       The Seventh Circuit has held that the standard of review of a determination that probable

cause exists supporting issuance of a search warrant is “one of affirmance absent clear error by the

issuing magistrate.” United States v. Pless, 982 F.2d 1118, 1124 (7th Cir. 1992). Indeed, “[a]

magistrate’s determination of probable cause ‘is to be given considerable weight and should be

overruled only when the supporting affidavit, read as a whole in a realistic and common sense

manner, does not allege specific facts and circumstances from which the magistrate could

reasonably conclude that the items sought to be seized are associated with the crime and located

in the place indicated.’” United States v. Newsom, 402 F.3d 780, 782 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting

United States v. Spry, 190 F.3d 829, 835 (7th Cir. 1999)).

B.     The Magistrate Committed Clear Error in Finding Probable Cause

       There is no dispute over the content of the anonymous tips or the findings in Deshaies’

social media investigation. The parties agree that the only reference to the Gay Street Residence is

the March 2023 tip. They agree that the social media investigation corroborated the information in

the anonymous tips that Defendant sold drugs and possessed firearms. Where they disagree is

whether that corroboration is enough to establish probable cause that the Gay Street Residence

would contain evidence of a crime.

       A tip from an anonymous informant rarely establishes probable cause for a search warrant;

there must be additional indicia of reliability to support probable cause. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S.

213, 227 (1983); Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 329 (1990) (“an anonymous tip alone seldom

demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or veracity”); United States v. Johnson, 289 F.3d

1034, 1038 (7th Cir. 2002) (noting that probable cause determinations based on a tip turn on the

informant’s “reliability, veracity, and basis of knowledge”) (abrogated on other grounds). The five

factors that inform the analysis include: (1) the degree to which the informant has learned about



                                                  4
USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cr-00055-HAB-SLC document 24 filed 12/14/23 page 5 of 8


the events through firsthand observation; (2) the amount of detail provided in the informant’s

statement; (3) the interval between the date of the events and the police officer’s application for

the search warrant; (4) the extent to which the police have corroborated the informant’s statements;

and (5) whether the informant appeared before the magistrate who issued the warrant. United

States v. Hollingsworth, 495 F.3d 795, 804 (7th Cir. 2007) (addressing a named informant of

unknown reliability). “[A] deficiency in one factor may be compensated for by a strong showing

in another or by some other indication of reliability.” United States v. Brack, 188 F.3d 748, 756

(7th Cir. 1999).

        The Government focuses on corroboration. It notes that virtually all information about

Defendant’s drug sales and firearm possession was corroborated by Defendant’s subsequent social

media posts. The Court agrees—Defendant was selling marijuana and narcotic cough syrup and

possessing firearms while doing so. Deshaies never corroborated the specific illegal activity

reported, largely because the tips were general in their reports of illegal activity, but he did confirm

that Defendant continued to tell anyone who viewed his social media accounts that he had drugs

for sale.

        But as Defendant notes, the public nature of the evidence used by Deshaies undercuts the

Government’s corroboration argument. “Absent verification of illegal conduct alleged in a tip,

police acting on anonymous tips must verify details not easily ascertained by public observation

or future actions of third parties ordinarily not easily predicted.” United States v. Lopez, 907 F.3d

472, 480 (7th Cir. 2018). All the information verified by Deshaies was “easily ascertained by

public observation” because Defendant made the information public. This is, after all, how

Deshaies verified the information—he went on Defendant’s public Instagram account. The only

thing Deshaies verified, then, was that the anonymous tipster had viewed Defendant’s Instagram



                                                   5
USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cr-00055-HAB-SLC document 24 filed 12/14/23 page 6 of 8


account, had accurately portrayed the activity on the account, and Defendant’s online presence

remained consistent for many months. This tells the Court little about the tipster’s reliability

regarding information not disclosed on the Instagram account—like the information about the Gay

Street Residence.

       And contrary to the Government’s arguments, the tip never predicted “future actions” of

Defendant. The tip merely summarized Defendant’s online activities with vague references to prior

drug sales. That Defendant continued to act in conformity to his prior conduct does not make a

report of that prior conduct “predictive.” Instead, predictive information tells law enforcement

specifics about what Defendant will do. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 225 (tip provided specific

information about defendant’s driving plans, flight schedule, and location of buys). That kind of

information is lacking.

       The remaining factors weigh against a finding that the anonymous tip was reliable. The

Court has no information that the tipster obtained any of the information through firsthand

observation. Rather, as discussed above, it seems far more likely that most of the information

relayed was gleaned from a public social media account.

       The tip was not all that detailed. The Court notes that the tip does not identify any instance

of illegal conduct. It does not state when, where, to whom, or in what quantities Defendant sold

drugs. Rather, it gives general information from Defendant’s Instagram account, and vague

references to sales where individuals “pull up somewhere around his house.” This is not the kind

of detail that lends credibility to an anonymous tip.

       There was also a long delay between the tips and the application for the warrant. This is

particularly true for the information about the Gay Street Residence. By the time Deshaies included




                                                 6
USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cr-00055-HAB-SLC document 24 filed 12/14/23 page 7 of 8


that information in the Affidavit, five months had passed. Whether this information was legally

stale (Defendant does not argue it was), the lapse of time weighs against a finding of reliability.

       Based on the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that there is no indicia of

reliability for the anonymous tip’s report that Defendant was keeping pounds of marijuana at the

Gay Street Residence. With no other information tying any criminal activity to that home, the

Court concludes that there was no “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime” would

be found there. United States v. Gibson, 996 F.3d 451, 461 (7th Cir. 2021). The magistrate judge

committed clear error in finding otherwise. The warrant for the Gay Street Residence was not

supported by probable cause.

       Still the Government asserts that the search is saved by the good-faith exception established

in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). For his part, Defendant claims that the “basis for

the good faith exception may be tied closely to the Court’s factual findings concerning the finding,

or lack thereof, of probable cause and any reasonable inferences that support that finding.” (ECF

No. 23 at 5). Defendant, then, seeks the right to brief the good-faith exception after the entry of

this opinion and order. The Court will grant that request.

III.   Conclusion

       For these reasons, the Court concludes that the search warrant issued on August 7, 2023,

for the Gay Street Residence was not supported by probable cause. Defendant’s brief on the good-

faith exception must be filed on or before January 17, 2024. The Government’s reply brief on good

faith, if any, is due January 31, 2024. Defendant’s motion to suppress (ECF No. 17) REMAINS

UNDER ADVISEMENT while the parties brief the good faith issue.




                                                 7
USDC IN/ND case 1:23-cr-00055-HAB-SLC document 24 filed 12/14/23 page 8 of 8


     SO ORDERED on December 14, 2023.

                                   s/ Holly A. Brady
                                   CHIEF JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY
                                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT




                                        8


File and source

File

24.pdf

Size

180,553 bytes

SHA-256

ba59f4f2b0c301ab53926350860a985f1c34d66971922a52869128174197cdc0

Our copy

24.pdf

Original

No public link identified.