United States v. Hines

On December 15, Louisville Detective Evans submitted an affidavit for a warrant to search the house at 668 Eastlawn, stating: In July 2015, officers learned from a “reliable confidential informant” (CS1) that Hines was “selling large amounts of heroin” out of 668 Eastlawn, owned by Hines’s mother. On December 14, CS1 informed Evans that CS1 had seen heroin at 668 Eastlawn that day. Evans received further information “from another reliable confidential source” (CS2) that Hines had contacted him and proposed meeting to discuss incoming heroin. After meeting with Hines, CS2 informed Evans that Hines wanted CS2 to meet at 668 Eastlawn the following day, where Hines would provide CS2 with heroin. CS2 stated he had received heroin from Hines numerous times at 668 Eastlawn. Officers set up surveillance, saw Hines leave the house and drive to the meeting, “in a manner consistent with narcotics traffickers,” “opposite of traffic down a one-way street before entering a dark, narrow alley.” Evans independently investigated Hines’s significant history as a drug trafficker and summarized it in the affidavit. The state judge signed a warrant, which was executed that day. Officers recovered 3.72 pounds of cocaine, 2.08 pounds of heroin, $16,085 in cash, and a digital scale. Charged under 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), Hines successfully moved to suppress the evidence. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the totality of the circumstances provided probable cause despite the lack of additional information about the informants. View "United States v. Hines" on Justia Law