Circumstantial Nexus to the Home After Sanders: Surveillance Linking a Residence to Drug Deliveries Suffices for Probable Cause; Firearm Proximity Supports §2D1.1(b)(1) and Defeats Safety Valve

Case: United States v. Allen, No. 23-6054 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 2024) (not recommended for publication)

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Author: Judge Julia Smith Gibbons

Note: Although this opinion is not recommended for publication and thus is not precedential within the Sixth Circuit, it offers a clear application of the court’s recent en banc guidance in United States v. Sanders on the “nexus” requirement for residential search warrants in drug cases and provides practical instruction on the firearm enhancement and safety-valve eligibility at sentencing.

Introduction

This appeal arises from a methamphetamine-distribution conspiracy investigation centered on defendant-appellant Kaitlyn Allen and co-defendant Billy Letner in Lexington, Kentucky. Following surveillance-based interdictions and a search of Allen’s residence that yielded packaged drugs, cash, and multiple firearms—including a loaded handgun in a dresser next to drugs—the district court denied Allen’s suppression motion and later applied a two-level firearm enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) while denying relief under the “safety valve,” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). Allen pleaded guilty while preserving her suppression challenge and appealed both the suppression ruling and the sentencing determinations.

The key issues on appeal were:

• Whether the search-warrant affidavit established probable cause with a sufficient “nexus” between Allen’s residence and drug trafficking evidence (and, if not, whether the good-faith exception applied).
• Whether a two-level enhancement for possession of a firearm during a drug offense under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1) was properly imposed.
• Whether Allen qualified for a safety-valve reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).

Summary of the Opinion

The Sixth Circuit affirmed across the board.

• Suppression: The affidavit established a sufficient nexus between Allen’s residence and drug trafficking, particularly through surveillance showing Allen leaving her home with bags that were transferred to Letner and then connected to drugs. Even if probable cause were debatable, the good-faith exception would apply because the affidavit was far from “bare-bones.”
• Firearm enhancement: The government proved by a preponderance that Allen possessed a firearm (at least constructively) during the conspiracy and that the loaded handgun’s proximity to drugs supported the enhancement; Allen failed to show it was “clearly improbable” the guns were connected to the offense.
• Safety valve: Allen could not meet § 3553(f)(2)’s requirement that she did not possess a firearm “in connection with the offense,” dooming safety-valve relief regardless of other prongs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and How They Informed the Decision

• Standards of review:
  • United States v. Frazier, 423 F.3d 526 (6th Cir. 2005): appellate review of suppression rulings—factual findings for clear error; legal conclusions de novo.
  • United States v. Abernathy, 843 F.3d 243 (6th Cir. 2016): great deference to the issuing magistrate’s probable-cause determination.
  • United States v. Pryor, 842 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2016) and United States v. Benson, 591 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2010): de novo review of Guidelines interpretation; clear error for factual findings such as firearm possession during a drug crime.
• Probable cause and nexus to a residence:
  • Frechette, 583 F.3d 374 (6th Cir. 2009): probable cause means a fair probability that evidence will be found in a particular place.
  • Weaver, 99 F.3d 1372 (6th Cir. 1996): affidavits must provide adequate supporting facts.
  • Helton, 35 F.4th 511 (6th Cir. 2022): requires a nexus between the place to be searched and evidence sought.
  • United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455 (6th Cir. 2024) (en banc): endorses circumstantial nexus; if officers observe a suspect leave a location and soon find contraband or a transaction, that suggests the contraband came from that location. Also recognizes the role of experienced officers’ inferences, in context, in establishing home-storage probabilities for ongoing dealers.
  • United States v. Reed, 993 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2021): permits a nexus where ongoing drug dealing is shown, but warns the suspect’s status as a dealer, standing alone, is insufficient.
  • United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683 (6th Cir. 2008) and United States v. Gunter, 266 F. App’x 415 (6th Cir. 2008): longstanding inference that drug traffickers use homes to store drugs/proceeds and other couriers of the trade.
• Good-faith exception and “bare-bones” affidavits:
  • UNITED STATES v. LEON, 468 U.S. 897 (1984): exclusionary rule does not apply when officers reasonably rely on a warrant.
  • United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2017): asks whether a well-trained officer would know the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s decision.
  • United States v. Rose, 714 F.3d 362 (6th Cir. 2013): “bare-bones” means insufficient particularized facts indicating veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge.
  • United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591 (6th Cir. 2004) and United States v. McCoy, 905 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2018): good-faith applies even when the nexus is weaker than what probable cause would strictly require.
• Firearm enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1):
  • United States v. Catalan, 499 F.3d 604 (6th Cir. 2007): Government must show possession (actual or constructive) during the offense; burden then shifts to defendant to prove it is “clearly improbable” the weapon was connected to the offense.
  • United States v. Kennedy, 65 F.4th 314 (6th Cir. 2023): enumerates factors for evaluating “clearly improbable,” including proximity, accessibility, ammunition, type of weapon, defendant’s explanation, and engagement in trafficking.
  • United States v. Bailey, 553 F.3d 940 (6th Cir. 2009): constructive possession from dominion over premises.
  • United States v. West, 962 F.3d 183 (6th Cir. 2020): government need not prove the gun was used during a sale; possession during relevant conduct suffices.
  • United States v. Bucio-Cabrales, 635 F. App’x 324 (6th Cir. 2016) and United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477 (6th Cir. 1996): guns found near drugs in a residence used for trafficking support the enhancement even without evidence of active use during sales.
• Safety-valve relief under § 3553(f):
  • United States v. Barron, 940 F.3d 903 (6th Cir. 2019): defendant bears the burden to prove eligibility by a preponderance.
  • United States v. Bolka, 355 F.3d 909 (6th Cir. 2004): the standards for the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement and § 3553(f)(2) safety-valve disqualifier are analytically distinct; an enhancement does not automatically defeat safety-valve eligibility—but the facts here defeated both.
  • United States v. Mackey, 265 F.3d 457 (6th Cir. 2001): loaded, accessible gun near drug paraphernalia suggests possession “in connection with” drug trafficking.

Legal Reasoning

1) Probable cause and the home nexus

The court grounded its nexus analysis in Sanders’s en banc articulation that circumstantial evidence can “do the trick.” Investigators repeatedly observed Allen leaving her residence with bags that ended up with Letner, including an occasion where a traffic stop yielded a pound of suspected meth and two pounds of suspected heroin or fentanyl alongside Allen’s bag. A confidential source corroborated the ongoing nature of the supply relationship, including a nine-pound cache at Letner’s residence shortly after a handoff.

These observations created a reasonable inference that Allen used her home to store and stage drugs for delivery, satisfying the nexus requirement. The court also noted the affiant’s 13.5 years with the DEA as adequate to invoke the common-sense inference—recognized in Williams and Reed—that ongoing drug traffickers often keep contraband, proceeds, or tools at home. The panel took care to reaffirm Reed’s “fine but significant line”: officers may not rely on “dealer status” alone; rather, it must be paired with contextual facts showing ongoing activity linked to the residence—precisely what the affidavit provided.

2) Good-faith exception

Even if probable cause were questionable, the Leon good-faith exception would still save the search. The affidavit was not “bare-bones”—it contained detailed surveillance, corroboration by a confidential source, and specific tie-ins between Allen’s departures from her home with packages and subsequent drug seizures or observations. Given Carpenter and McCoy, the nexus here exceeds what is required to sustain good-faith reliance, which has a lower threshold than probable cause.

3) Firearm enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1)

The government met its initial burden by showing possession during relevant conduct: a loaded 9mm handgun was found in a dresser next to drugs, with two additional handguns in the closet. Constructive possession is established by dominion over the premises (Bailey). West confirms no proof is required that the gun was used during a sale; proximity in a trafficking locale suffices.

Allen did not carry her shifted burden to show it was “clearly improbable” the guns were connected to the offense. The Kennedy factors point decisively toward connection:

• Type of firearm: handguns—typical in drug trafficking contexts.
• Accessibility: a loaded handgun in a bedroom dresser.
• Ammunition: the 9mm was loaded.
• Proximity: the loaded gun was next to drugs; more guns were in the closet where trafficking paraphernalia and proceeds were found.
• Defendant’s explanation: generalized safety concerns do not negate the trafficking connection under Hill and Mackey.
• Nature of activity: ongoing conspiracy with distribution quantities and packaging.

4) Safety-valve eligibility under § 3553(f)

The court held Allen ineligible based on § 3553(f)(2): she failed to prove by a preponderance that she did not possess a firearm “in connection with” the offense. The same facts supporting the enhancement also support disqualification—especially the loaded gun’s proximity to drugs, a classic indicator of protective or facilitative use in trafficking (Mackey). While Bolka recognizes that some cases may impose the enhancement yet still permit safety-valve relief, those are fact-bound circumstances not present here. With prong (2) unsatisfied, the court did not need to resolve prong (5)’s “truthful disclosure” dispute.

Impact and Practical Implications

On search warrants and the nexus requirement:

• Sanders operationalized: This case shows how Sanders’s circumstantial-nexus framework functions in practice. Repeated, corroborated observations of a suspect leaving home with packages immediately preceding transfers and seizures can suffice to link the home to contraband.
• Officer experience without “magic words”: The panel accepted the affiant’s years with the DEA as sufficient to demonstrate experience, even without an explicit “based on my training and experience” paragraph tying every inference to that experience. That reduces the risk of suppression over formalistic omissions, though robust factual detail remains key.
• Good faith as a backstop: Even close calls on nexus are likely to be saved by Leon when affidavits contain particularized surveillance and corroboration; truly “bare-bones” affidavits remain disallowed but are rare under this rubric.

On sentencing—firearms and safety valve:

• Proximity is powerful: A loaded handgun near drugs in a trafficker’s residence will typically trigger § 2D1.1(b)(1). Defendants must present concrete, credible evidence to meet the “clearly improbable” standard—mere assertions of benign purpose (e.g., home protection) generally will not suffice.
• Safety valve remains fact-sensitive: Although enhancement and safety-valve determinations are analytically distinct (Bolka), the same proximity evidence often carries the day on both. Defendants seeking safety-valve relief should compile strong proof severing any connection between the firearm and the offense (e.g., locked storage, inaccessible to the defendant, credible alternative ownership and purpose), and be prepared to satisfy the truthful-disclosure prong.
• Plea bargaining leverage: The opinion reinforces that finding a firearm near drugs in a trafficking residence significantly shifts sentencing exposure and can foreclose safety-valve relief, affecting negotiations and litigation strategy.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Probable cause: Not proof beyond a reasonable doubt; it is a “fair probability” that evidence will be found in a particular place based on the totality of the circumstances.
• Nexus: A logical link between the place to be searched (here, a home) and the evidence sought. After Sanders, officers may rely on circumstantial links, such as observed departures from a home immediately followed by drug possession or sales.
• Good-faith exception (Leon): Evidence will not be suppressed if officers reasonably relied on a judge-issued warrant, unless the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause (i.e., “bare-bones”) that reliance was objectively unreasonable.
• “Bare-bones” affidavit: One that lacks particularized facts establishing veracity, reliability, or a basis of knowledge; mere conclusions or boilerplate assertions are insufficient.
• Constructive possession: Even without physically holding an item, a person possesses it if they know about it and have the power and intent to control it—often inferred from control of the premises.
• Relevant conduct: For guideline purposes, includes acts during the offense, in preparation for it, or in avoiding detection; thus, guns in a trafficking residence may count even if not used in an actual sale.
• Firearm enhancement (§ 2D1.1(b)(1)) burden-shifting: The government must show possession during the offense; the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove it is “clearly improbable” the weapon was connected to the offense.
• Safety valve (§ 3553(f)): Allows sentencing below a mandatory minimum if five criteria are met, including no possession of a firearm “in connection with the offense” and full, truthful disclosure to the government. The defendant bears the burden by a preponderance.
• Standards of review: Appellate courts defer to district courts on factual findings (clear error), but review legal conclusions de novo.

Conclusion

United States v. Allen synthesizes and applies the Sixth Circuit’s en banc direction in Sanders: circumstantial surveillance tying a suspect’s departures from home with drug handoffs and seizures can establish the required home nexus for a search warrant. The opinion also underscores the forgiving nature of Leon’s good-faith doctrine when affidavits are detailed and corroborated. On sentencing, the court reiterates that a loaded firearm in close proximity to drugs supports § 2D1.1(b)(1)’s enhancement and generally defeats safety-valve eligibility under § 3553(f)(2), absent strong contrary evidence. While unpublished, the opinion is a practical template for agents drafting affidavits in drug cases, prosecutors defending warrants and enhancements, and defense counsel evaluating suppression and sentencing strategies in the post-Sanders landscape.