United States v. Simmons - Warrant to Search Drug Trafficker's Home Upheld Under "Continual and Ongoing Operations" Theory

In United States v. Simmons, --- F.4th --- (6th Cir. 2025), the Sixth Circuit upheld the denial of a motion to supress evidence found in a drug trafficker's home.

In April 2022, Grand Rapids police began investigating Lamon Simmons after a confidential informant, who had previously conducted reliable drug buys, identified him as a cocaine dealer.  Over several months, officers arranged controlled buys confirming his drug sales and observed him often traveling between two locations: a suspected stash house on Holly Street and his primary residence on Weatherwood Drive, where he parked his cars and listed his address with federal probation. 

In December 2022, police obtained search warrants for both locations, citing Simmons’s movements and the likelihood that evidence of drug trafficking—such as cash, records, or paraphernalia—would be found in his home.  The searches uncovered guns, ammunition, cash, and various drugs, leading to his indictment on multiple drug and firearm charges. 

Simmons moved to suppress the evidence from his residence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause because it failed to establish a direct link between his drug sales and his home.  The district court denied the motion, applying the “continual-and-ongoing-operations” theory, which recognizes that drug traffickers often keep evidence at home, even when sales occur elsewhere.  The court found that the extended surveillance, controlled buys, and officer experience made it reasonable to infer that Simmons’s residence contained evidence of his crimes.  Additionally, even if probable cause was debatable, suppression was unwarranted under the good faith exception.

On appeal, Simmons argued that the warrant lacked probable cause.  The Sixth Circuit disagreed, reaffirming the “continual and ongoing operations” theory.  The Court held that a warrant can be valid even without direct evidence of drug sales at a residence, as long as there is strong evidence linking the home to a trafficker’s ongoing activities.  While simply being a dealer is not enough to justify a search, the Court explained that traffickers running sustained operations are likely to keep drugs, money, or records at home.

The Court found that this connection was supported by multiple controlled buys, Simmons’s frequent travel between locations, and his history as a trafficker.  Citing United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2024), the Court reiterated that officers do not need to witness drug sales at a residence to establish probable cause.  Instead, a pattern of trafficking activity, combined with a reasonable inference that evidence would be found at home, is sufficient.  Given the controlled buys, informant reports, surveillance, and officer expertise, the Court concluded that the affidavit established a strong enough link to Simmons’s home to justify the search.

Judge Ritz, in a concurring opinion, stated he would have upheld the search solely under the good-faith exception.  While he acknowledged the affidavit may not have been the strongest, he found it detailed enough to justify officers relying on it.  He rejected Simmons’s claim that the affidavit was “bare bones,” noting that it included a reliable informant’s firsthand observations, multiple controlled buys, and an experienced officer’s analysis.