Affirming Fourth Amendment Compliance: Technical Warrant Omissions, Probable-Cause Nexus, and Plain-View Seizures

Introduction

In United States v. Malgum Whiteside, Jr., 6th Cir. No. 24-1173 (May 19, 2025), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed two key Fourth Amendment questions: (1) whether a search warrant was “issued” when the magistrate signed only the affidavit and not the warrant itself; and (2) whether the warrant affidavit established a sufficient nexus between Whiteside’s apartment and evidence of aggravated stalking. The defendant, convicted of being a felon in possession of firearms discovered during a search of his residence, challenged the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed the district court’s ruling, clarifying the extent of signature requirements for warrants, reaffirming the standard for probable-cause nexus, and applying the plain-view doctrine to the firearm seizure.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Plaintiff-Appellee: United States of America
Defendant-Appellant: Malgum Whiteside, Jr.
Trial Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Judge Robert J. Jonker)
Disposition: Motion to suppress firearms denied; defendant pleaded guilty, reserved suppression ruling; sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment; appeal to Sixth Circuit.

Facts and Background

From May 2018 through early 2022, Whiteside maintained an extramarital affair with a University of Michigan nurse, J.C., using intimidation—threats to expose explicit photos—to coerce her continued participation. After J.C. reported stalking and non-violent intimidation to campus police, officers identified Whiteside, warned him against further contact, and secured a felony warrant for stalking and related offenses. Detectives Mathews and Cavanaugh obtained a warrant to search Whiteside’s Harwick Drive apartment for electronic devices, images of the victim, and proof of residence. During the search, Detective Cavanaugh discovered two handguns in plain view and seized them. Whiteside, a convicted felon, was subsequently indicted federally for unlawful possession of firearms.

Summary of the Judgment

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Whiteside’s suppression motion on three grounds:

Probable-Cause Nexus: The warrant affidavit—detailing prior threats, explicit images, J.C.’s observations of a laptop at Whiteside’s home, and Whiteside’s history of distributing intimate images—gave the issuing judge a “substantial basis” to infer evidence of stalking would be found at the apartment.
Issuance Despite Partial Signature: Under the Fourth Amendment, “issuance” requires a neutral magistrate’s oath or affirmation and a probable-cause determination, not necessarily a magistrate’s signature on every page. Contemporaneous evidence (the judge’s oath administration, stamped name on each page, coordinator’s email confirming signed copies) established valid warrant issuance.
Plain-View Seizure of Firearms: Detective Cavanaugh lawfully entered pursuant to the valid warrant, the handguns were immediately visible (or visible after reasonable rearrangement), and their incriminating nature was apparent because Whiteside was a known felon. Thus, the plain-view exception rendered their seizure constitutional.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983): Established the “totality of the circumstances” approach to probable cause and the deference owed to a magistrate’s finding.
United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455 (6th Cir. en banc 2024): Emphasized that a warrant is valid if the magistrate had a “substantial basis” for probable cause and upheld deference to the issuing judge.
United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2008): Held a nexus may be inferred when a suspect is known to possess contraband and evidence shows he used it in crime, akin to a bank robber keeping loot at home.
United States v. Brown, 828 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2016): Distinguished circumstances where no nexus exists because the affidavit lacked any link between defendant’s home and objective criminal activity.
United States v. Beals, 698 F.3d 248 (6th Cir. 2012): Rejected a per se rule invalidating a search warrant executed with an unsigned copy when the magistrate had signed another copy, showing issuance.
United States v. Lyons, 740 F.3d 702 (1st Cir. 2014): Held the Fourth Amendment does not implicitly require magistrate signatures on every page; issuance can be demonstrated by oath, magistrate review, and contemporaneous evidence.
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990): Set forth requirements for plain-view seizures: lawful vantage point, immediate incriminating character, and lawful access.
United States v. Truitt, 521 F.2d 1174 (6th Cir. 1975): Applied a facts-and-circumstances test to determine whether a sawed-off shotgun was incriminating evidence under plain view.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s opinion weaves three pillars of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence: probable-cause nexus, issuance formalities, and warrant exceptions.

Probable-Cause Nexus: Relying on Gates and Sixth Circuit practice, the court applied a commonsense “fair probability” standard. The affidavit tied Whiteside’s pattern of threats, possession and distribution of explicit images (by phone or DVD), and J.C.’s firsthand knowledge of his phone and laptop. Because criminal suspects typically store incriminating evidence at home (Williams), and these allegations were recent and detailed, the court concluded the magistrate had a substantial basis to infer evidence would be found at the Harwick apartment. The absence of an explicit “residence” statement was cured by the affiant’s positive identification of the address (via license and LEIN checks) and the Lansing Township sergeant’s on-site confirmation.

Signature Requirement: The Fourth Amendment demands that a warrant issue “upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,” but does not name a signature requirement. Interpreting Beals and national consensus (Lyons, Cruz), the court held that contemporaneous proof of magistrate review—oath administered, signature on affidavit, official stamp on warrant pages, and coordinator’s email—demonstrated valid issuance by a neutral magistrate, despite the warrant itself lacking a signature.

Plain-View Seizure: Once the court found the warrant valid, it applied the Horton factors. Detective Cavanaugh’s entry was lawful; he saw the guns tucked in the bedframe from a permissible vantage or after minor rearrangement (necessary to look for small electronic items authorized by the warrant). His knowledge of Whiteside’s felon status rendered the incriminating nature of the firearms immediately apparent, satisfying the probable-cause threshold for seizure under Truitt and its progeny.

3. Potential Impact

Technical Defects Held Harmless: Courts may decline to suppress evidence over ministerial errors in warrant issuance so long as a neutral magistrate’s probable-cause determination is demonstrable.
Nexus Clarified: Affidavits need not recite every inference explicitly; judges can draw reasonable inferences about suspects storing evidence at home when allegations are recent, specific, and corroborated.
Strengthening Plain-View Doctrine: Reinforces law enforcement’s latitude to seize firearms when officers know a suspect is a felon, even if the weapon itself is not per se contraband.
Future Litigants: Will find it harder to challenge warrants on signature technicalities or demand exhaustive recitals of every nexus fact, shifting focus to substantive probable-cause evaluations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Substantial Basis for Probable Cause: A low bar requiring only that the judge have more than a bare suspicion—“fair probability”—that evidence will be found.
Magistrate Issuance vs. Signature: “Issuance” means a neutral judge reviewed the affidavit under oath and approved it; a separate signature line, while helpful, is not constitutionally mandated.
Plain-View Doctrine: Officers may seize evidence not listed in a warrant if they lawfully enter, see it, recognize it as connected to crime based on training/facts, and have authority to access it.
Nexus Requirement: The connection between suspected criminal activity and the place to be searched—courts can infer it if the affidavit shows a suspect’s pattern of behavior and storage of contraband or related evidence at home.

Conclusion

United States v. Whiteside affirms a pragmatic, substance-over-form approach to Fourth Amendment warrant law. By upholding a search warrant despite a missing magistrate signature, the Sixth Circuit underscores that constitutional compliance hinges on a real review and oath, not on paper-work formalities. The decision also reinforces that a probable-cause nexus can be inferred from recent, specific allegations and a suspect’s modus operandi, while officers executing a valid warrant may lawfully seize plainly visible contraband—here, firearms possessed by a known felon. Together, these holdings will guide future courts and investigators toward balancing individual rights with practical law enforcement imperatives.