USA v. Roberson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHYHEIM ROBERSON,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:23-cr-498
Judge J. Philip Calabrese
Magistrate Judge
Jonathan D. Greenberg
OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Shyheim Roberson, a self-proclaimed “#GUNTUBER,” moves to
suppress evidence seized in the search of his residence. 	Defendant argues that the
affidavit supporting the search warrant contains misleading statements and omits
material information. 	Without the misleading information, and placing certain
information in the affidavit in its full context, he argues that the search warrant lacks
probable cause. He seeks a hearing to develop the record to support these arguments,
which the United States opposes.
A court does not review the issuance of a warrant on a clean slate as if deciding
whether to authorize a search in the first instance. 	Under the deferential standard
of review for challenges to warrants, the Court cannot say that the State judge who
issued the warrant lacked a substantial basis for his determination of probable cause.
For these reasons, and those more fully explained below, the Court DENIES the
motion to suppress without an evidentiary hearing.
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 1 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

2
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A grand jury charged Defendant Shyheim Roberson in a two-count indictment
with conspiracy to possess machine guns illegally, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and
illegal possession of machine guns, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(1). (ECF No. 1.)
The bulk of the fifteen-page indictment details his communications with foreign
arms-dealers about the purchase of Glock switches. When installed on a Glock-style
pistol, these switches convert a semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic fire. As a
result, federal law classifies the switches themselves as a “machinegun.” 	See
26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Mr. Roberson has no prior criminal history.
As part of an ongoing investigation into the unlawful possession of Glock
switches, a detective with the Cleveland police found Mr. Roberson’s social media
accounts, specifically his public Instagram account and public YouTube page. (ECF
No. 21-1, ¶¶ 2–3, & 7, PageID #80–82.) 	The detective and other members of a joint
federal-local 	task 	force 	monitored 	and 	documented 	Mr. 	Roberson’s 	Instagram
account. (Id., ¶¶ 3 & 12, PageID #81 & #83.)
On January 6, 2023, a State court judge signed a warrant authorizing a search
of Mr. Roberson’s residence. (ECF No. 39-1.) A detective assigned to the Cleveland
Division of Police Gang Impact Unit and the FBI Safe Streets Gang Task Force swore
out the affidavit. 	(ECF No. 21-1, ¶ 1, PageID #80.) 	At that time, he had been a
detective for one year and nine months and a police officer for four years with the
Cleveland Police. 	(Id.) 	Before joining the Cleveland police, the affiant was a police
officer for approximately two years in New Orleans. (Id.)
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 2 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

3
After obtaining the warrant, law enforcement conducted a search days later
and found electronics, gun cases, gun parts, ammunition, magazines, six guns, and
three suspected Glock switches. (ECF No. 39, PageID #177–78.) On August 25, 2025,
the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the authority of
United States v. Bridges, 150 F.4th 517 (6th Cir. 2025). (ECF No. 38.)
Defendant moves to suppress the evidence obtained in the search and for a
hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). Following the close of
briefing, the Court heard oral argument on the motion on November 5, 2025.
(Minutes, Nov. 5, 2025.)
ANALYSIS
The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and
provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.” 	U.S. Const. amend IV. 	“‘At the very core’ of the Fourth
Amendment ‘stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free
from unreasonable governmental intrusion.’” Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31
(2001) (quoting Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511 (1961)). “[T]he ‘physical
entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth
Amendment is directed.’” 	Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980) (quoting
United States v. U.S. Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Mich., 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972)).
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 3 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

4
“To establish probable cause adequate to justify issuance of a search warrant,
the governmental entity or agent seeking the warrant must submit to the magistrate
an affidavit that establishes ‘a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime
will be found in a particular place.’” United States v. Brooks, 594 F.3d 488, 492 (6th
Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Berry, 565 F.3d 332, 338 (6th Cir. 2009)).
Probable cause is “not a high bar.” Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 320, 338 (2014).
It means “reasonable grounds for belief, supported by less than prima facie proof, but
more than mere suspicion.” 	United States v. Lattner, 385 F.3d 947, 951 (6th Cir.
2004) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Padro, 52 F.3d 120, 122–23 (6th Cir.
1995) (citing United States v. Bennett, 905 F.2d 931, 934 (6th Cir. 1990)). Ultimately,
the determination of probable cause involves a practical, commonsense review of the
totality of the available facts and circumstances. 	Padro, 52 F.3d at 123 (citations
omitted). Probable cause must persist from “the time the judge issues the warrant”
through “the time officers execute it.” 	United States v. Sheckles, 996 F.3d 330, 339
(6th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).
I. 	Standard of Review
Ordinarily, a court affords a determination of probable cause “great deference.”
United States v. Asker, 676 F. App’x 447, 456 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States
v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914 (1984)); see also United States v. Abernathy, 843 F.3d 243,
250 (6th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 973 (6th Cir. 2000)
(en banc)). A reviewing court does not scrutinize the issuance of a warrant after the
fact under a de novo standard, which would be inconsistent with the Fourth
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 4 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

5
Amendment’s 	strong 	preference 	for 	searches 	conducted 	pursuant 	to 	warrants.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983) (quotation omitted).
The issuing judge must make “a practical, common-sense decision whether,
given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the
‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is
a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular
place.” 	Id., at 238. 	When reviewing that determination, the Court simply ensures
that the magistrate judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause
supported the warrant. Id., at 238–39; see also United States v. Alfano, 838 F.2d 158,
162 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Lambert, 771 F.2d 83, 93 (6th Cir. 1985)).
“Review of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting probable cause is limited
to the information presented in the four corners of the affidavit.” 	United States v.
Jackson, 470 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Frazier, 423 F.3d
526, 531 (6th Cir. 2005)). 	In addition to the facts in the affidavit, a reviewing court
also considers reasonable inferences from those facts. 	United States v. McCoy, 905
F.3d 409, 416 (6th Cir. 2018). 	In determining whether probable cause supports the
issuance of a warrant, a court reviews the significance of each piece of evidence on
which the affidavit relies, then the totality of facts and circumstances. United States
v. Christian, 893 F.3d 846, 854 (6th Cir. 2018). But a court does not engage in line-
by-line scrutiny of the affidavit. United States v. Walling, 747 F. App’x 382, 385 (6th
Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Allen, 211 F.3d 970, 972–73 (6th Cir. 2000)
(en banc)). In conducting its analysis, a court focuses on the factual assertions in the
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 5 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

6
affidavit supporting the warrant, not its conclusory statements from the affiant.
Christian, 893 F.3d at 859 (citing United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683, 687 (6th
Cir. 2008)). 	The responsibility for determining whether probable cause supports a
warrant rests with the issuing judge, not the officer seeking the warrant. McCoy, 905
F.3d at 416 (citing Leon, 468 U.S. at 919–22).
The results of a search do not factor into the evaluation of whether probable
cause supported the issuance of a warrant. See United States v. Smith, 510 F.3d 641,
648 (6th Cir. 2007). The judge issuing a warrant does not enjoy the same benefit of
hindsight as a judge reviewing the search after the fact. Therefore, the Court gives
no consideration to the results of the search of Mr. Roberson’s residence.
II. 	Motion to Suppress
In his motion to suppress, Defendant argues that the affidavit contains
materially false and misleading statements and omits material information. 	(ECF
No. 21; ECF No. 41.) When that false or misleading information is removed and the
omitted information is considered, Defendant argues that the affidavit does not
establish probable cause. (ECF No. 21, PageID #70 & #77–78.)
II.A.1. Instagram Generally
First, Defendant maintains that the affiant omitted “important information”
about Instagram, generally, including about its reposting features and incentives to
monetize engagement. (Id., PageID #76–77.) He points out that finding a photograph
or video on an individual’s Instagram page “does not mean the owner of that page
was involved [ ] in the making of that photograph or video” or that the individual
“possessed that object at anytime or even had the ability to possess that object.” (Id.)
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 6 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

7
Additionally, Defendant argues that there are “financial reasons” for an individual to
post other users’ content on their page. 	(Id., PageID #77.) 	For those financial
reasons, Defendant argues that he posted provocative content and reposted other
users’ content to his own Instagram page to boost his followers and earn money. (Id.)
The Court acknowledges that the affidavit does not include a summary about
how social media generally or Instagram in particular operate or enable users to
monetize content. 	In the Court’s view, however, no such background is necessary.
Indeed, as licensed lawyers, State judges have an ethical obligation to maintain their
technological competence. 	Ohio Prof. Conduct R. 1.1 cmt. 8 (“To maintain the
requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and
its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology[.]”).
Absent some reason to think that the State judge who issued the warrant lacked the
technological fluency that might make inclusion of this information in a warrant
helpful, the Court assumes that, through the faithful discharge of his regular duties,
the issuing judge had a sufficient understanding of the workings of social media. The
omission of this information does not render the affidavit false or misleading or
incomplete.
II.A.2. Specific Paragraphs of the Affidavit
Also, Defendant claims that the affiant made false or misleading statements
or omitted information from individual paragraphs. 	(ECF No. 21, PageID #73–76.)
The Court addresses each in turn.
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 7 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

8
II.A.2.a. Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8 of the affidavit supporting the warrant attests that the task force
officer reviewed one of Mr. Roberson’s YouTube videos that includes a story, which
the affiant takes as evidence that Mr. Roberson has or can obtain Glock switches.
The paragraph reads:
Affiant avers he reviewed several of Shyheim Roberson’s YouTube
videos and was drawn to one particular video titled ‘Glock 19 GEN 5
Review’. 	Within the video, Roberson is holding a Glock firearm and
states, “I got a funny story about this Glock on my momma. I am doing
something I ain’t supposed to be doing with these bitches ya feel me?”
(Emphasis added). 	Later within the same video, Roberson is holding
the Glock up to the camera with the rear end of the firearm in view, and
he points with his finger to the slide cover plate. While pointing at the
slide cover plate, Roberson states, “Aye y’all peep me though. It’s over
with, I am going to the feds.” 	(Emphasis added). 	Affiant avers when
Roberson stated ‘going to the feds’ while pointing at the slide cover
plate, Affiant believes Roberson is referring to Glock switches, which
are federally illegal. 	Affiant avers, based on his experience, he has
personally observed Glock handguns that are equipped with switches.
In each instance, Affiant avers the switches were attached to the slide
cover plate exactly where Roberson was pointing in the screen shot
(See Exhibit B below).
(ECF No. 21-1, PageID #82.) 	A screenshot from the YouTube video was
attached to the affidavit:
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 8 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

9
(Id., PageID #89.)
Defendant argues that the statement about “going to the feds” was “clearly
made as a joke in order to gain more subscribers to his [YouTube] videos.” 	(ECF
No. 21, PageID #73.) 	Also, no Glock switch appears in the video. 	(Id.) 	Further,
Defendant argues that the affiant “cherry picke[ed]” the statements about the “funny
story” about doing something that he should not be doing. (Id., PageID #74.) Playing
the video, the story turns out to be about Mr. Roberson disassembling a firearm and
having trouble reassembling it. Defendant argues that the affiant’s inclusion of only
a portion of the story “leaves the reader with the misimpression that Mr. Roberson
was involved with Glock switches.” (Id.)
The United States argues that had the affiant included the full story in the
affidavit instead of only Mr. Roberson’s teaser from the beginning of his video, the
additional statements would have bolstered a finding of probable cause. 	By adding
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 9 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

10
two sentences about removing the rear slide plate and the spring popping out, the
United States believes that the affidavit would have strengthened the affiant’s belief
that Mr. Roberson was involved with Glock switches. 	Because the additional
information would have supported the inference of probable cause, any omission was
not to mislead the judge, and Defendant failed to meet his burden under Franks.
Defendant has the better of the argument. In the first ten seconds of the video,
Mr. Roberson uses the beginning of the “funny story about this Glock,” which he tells
at the end of the video, as a teaser. (ECF No. 21-2, manual filing of Ex. B.) Roughly
six and half minutes into the video, Mr. Roberson states “I am going to the feds” while
holding the Glock close to the camera to sharpen the camera’s focus on the Glock and
pointing to the slide cover plate of the Glock. Roughly thirteen minutes into the video,
Mr. Roberson tells the “funny story” about the Glock. 	After the statements in the
teaser, Mr. Roberson’s next sentence is “I took this back plate off” while pointing to
the slide cover plate. 	But Mr. Roberson continues to describe how he took his gun
apart but could not figure out how to put it back together, so he took apart his friend’s
gun and nearly broke his gun too. In this respect, the excerpts of the video on which
the affiant relies become something of a machine-gun double entendre.
For that reason, the video might give rise to suspicion. But the Court doubts
it can do more. A busy State judge, however, will likely rely on the affiant’s summary
of the video, particularly one as long as this one. Indeed, at oral argument, the United
States confirmed that the full video was likely not provided to the judge who signed
the warrant. 	When proceeding ex parte, litigants have heightened duties of candor.
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 10 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

11
It would not have taken much to provide more complete context for the video. 	But
that did not occur here. 	The parties debate whether, based on his viewing of the
YouTube video, the affiant attested to an opinion. But the Court need not enter that
fray. 	The Court will simply disregard this paragraph in its entirety in determining
whether the affidavit supports probable cause.
II.A.2.b. Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9 describes a story posted to Mr. Roberson’s Instagram account that
shows a hand manipulating a Glock switch with an arrow connecting two cellphone
emoji on the video. It states:
Affiant avers on Tuesday, October 26, 2022, at approximately 1513
hours, he was monitoring Shyheim Roberson’s Instagram account
4eg_shobbs and observed a story post. 	On the story, a dark gray
handgun, consistent in appearance with the semi-automatic Glock in
Roberson’s 	aforementioned 	YouTube 	video, 	is 	observed 	resting
between a pair of legs with a hand (medium in complexion, consistent
with Roberson’s skin tone) manipulating a Glock switch’s pin back and
forth from right to left (See Exhibit C below). The switch is black/dark
gray in color and appears to have the Glock logo engraved upon it.
Affiant avers that the switch is attached on the firearm’s slide cover
plate, the same position on the firearm that Roberson referenced in his
Youtube video (as mentioned above).
(ECF No. 21-1, PageID #82–83.) 	A screenshot of the Instagram story post was
attached to the affidavit:
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 11 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

12
(Id., PageID #90.)
Defendant concedes that this paragraph contains “indisputable evidence of a
Glock switch[].” 	(ECF No. 21, PageID #75.) 	However, he argues that this switch
cannot be tied to Mr. Roberson. 	(Id.) 	The “only things visible” in the post are the
Glock switch and the hand. 	(Id., PageID #76.) 	Because the handgun is not visible,
Defendant argues that there is no way for the affiant to conclude that the handgun
is consistent in appearance with the Glock that Mr. Roberson possessed in the
YouTube video. (Id.)
The United States argues that a comparison of this Instagram story post and
Mr. Roberson’s YouTube video from March 19, 2023—described in Paragraph 8 of the
affidavit—supports the affiant’s conclusion that the two firearms are “consistent in
appearance.” (ECF No. 39, PageID #191–92.) The United States adds that the affiant
did not exaggerate any similarities between the two firearms and did not state that
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 12 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

13
they were the same two firearms but rather constrained his conclusion to consistency
in appearance. (Id., PageID #192–93.)
The Court agrees that it does not matter whether the hands in this photo and
video are Mr. Roberson’s. 	While Mr. Roberson is not identifiable in the post, he did
post the photos to his personal Instagram account. 	Even if not his, he posted the
image of the Glock switch on his account with arrow and cell phone emoji that can
reasonably be interpreted as solicitations. They appear to communicate the message:
if you are interested in a Glock switch, use your phone to hit me up. The identity of
the hands does not change the message of the post, which properly figures into the
determination of probable cause.
II.A.2.c. Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10 describes a story posted to Mr. Roberson’s Instagram account
that the affiant interpreted as an advertisement for a Glock with a switch:
Affiant avers on Monday, November 7th, 2022, at approximately 1817
hours, he was monitoring Shyheim Roberson’s Instagram account
43g_shobbs and observed another story post. 	Affiant avers the story
post displayed a green background with the script that stated, “G19 w a
switch $1100 who want it” and an emoji of a pair of eyes below the script.
Affiant avers the word “switch” on the story post is partially covered
with red coloring in [an] attempt to conceal the word switch. 	Affiant
avers this post is believed to be Roberson advertising to his followers
the 	potential 	sale 	of 	a 	Glock 	19 	handgun 	with 	the 	Glock 	switch
attachment included (See Exhibit D below).
(ECF No. 21-1, ¶ 10, PageID #83.) 	A screenshot of the Instagram story post was
attached to the affidavit:
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 13 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

14
(Id., PageID #91.)
The parties did not address Paragraph 10 in their papers. 	At oral argument,
the Court raised it. Defendant did not argue that this paragraph contained any false
or 	misleading 	statement 	or 	omitted information. 	Defendant 	conceded 	that 	if
Paragraph 10 by itself would establish probable cause, that might be an issue. The
United States views this post as a “pretty explicit advertisement online” to sell a
Glock with a switch attached. 	On its face, this post shows Mr. Roberson directly
soliciting buyers of a Glock 19 with a switch attached and supplies probable cause.
II.A.2.d. Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11 of the affidavit describes a story posted to Mr. Roberson’s
Instagram account that the affiant interpreted as a solicitation for the sale of Glock
switches:
Affiant avers on Tuesday, November 22 nd , 2022, at approximately 1210
hours, he was monitoring Shyheim Roberson’s Instagram account
4eg_shobbs and observed an additional story post. 	Affiant avers this
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 14 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

15
story post displayed the script “switches tap in”. Affiant avers through
his experience, the use of the phrase ‘tap in’ is commonly utilized on
Instagram. 	Affiant avers in this instance of the phrase, Roberson is
encouraging any interested parties to reach out to him about purchasing
a Glock switch (See Exhibit E below).
(ECF No. 21-1, PageID #83.) A screenshot of the Instagram story post was attached
to the affidavit:
(Id., PageID #92.)
Defendant argues that the affiant “fails to acknowledge” that the story post
includes emoji of game controllers, referencing one of Nintendo’s gaming systems
called a Switch and that the affiant “fails to explain” why he concluded the post was
about Glock switches instead of Nintendo Switches. (ECF No. 21, PageID #75.) The
United States counters that the affiant included a screenshot of the Instagram post
as an exhibit to the affidavit, so Mr. Roberson “has no basis to claim” that the affiant
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 15 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

16
“hid the reference to video games from the reviewing judge.” 	(ECF No. 39, PageID
#184.)
An affiant has no obligation to rebut every potential innocent explanation.
This post might offer Glock switches for sale or play off the double meaning of the
term to gain attention. 	But it supplies a fact that the judge may fairly consider in
the determination of probable cause.
II.A.2.e. Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16 describes a video posted to Mr. Roberson’s Instagram account in
which he holds a gun with the rear slide plate removed and a black square there,
where a Glock switch would be:
Affiant avers on Saturday, December 17th, 2022, Shyheim Roberson
posted 	a 	video 	on 	his 	public 	Instagram 	page. 	The 	video 	shows
Roberson standing in a room talking on the phone with what appears
to be a tan Glock semi-automatic firearm. Additionally, throughout the
duration of the video, there is a text box prominently displayed along
the top of the screen that reads, “When a random number call and say I
heard you gotta switch.” Affiant avers he screen recorded the Instagram
video and was able to slow the video down frame by frame. Affiant avers
once the video was slowed down, he was able to stop the video when
Roberson is holding the tan handgun with the side profile of the
handgun fully displayed. 	Affiant avers while the firearm’s side profile
is shown, he observed a small black square shaped object attached on
the rear slide plate of the tan handgun (See Exhibit F below). This object
is located on the rear slide plate of the handgun and is consistent in
appearance with the Glock switches Roberson has previously posted.
Affiant avers that, in this instance, the Glock-switch is observed on a
different tan Glock semi-automatic handgun. 	Affiant avers this is
noteworthy 	because 	it 	demonstrates 	that 	Roberson 	is 	capable 	of
securing the Glock-switch to multiple different firearms.
(ECF No. 21-1, PageID #84–85.) A screenshot from the Instagram video was attached
to the affidavit:
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 16 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

17
(Id., PageID #93.)
Defendant describes the video as showing a wooden block secured with black
electrical tape to the back of his tan handgun, which he removed and threw in a trash
can during the video. 	(ECF No. 21, PageID #78.) 	Defendant argues that, as a
firearms expert, the affiant would know that removing a Glock switch requires tools,
so could not be removed as easily as the video depicts. (Id., PageID #74.) Defendant
“does not dispute” that he is using the subject of Glock switches to provide interest in
his social media accounts or that he recorded this video in his residence. (Id., PageID
#78.) He claims this video is a parody intended to generate social media engagement
(id., PageID #74) and that talking about Glock switches is different than having them.
The United States argues that the video “does not show” that the square-
shaped object actually is a wood block attached with black electrical tape and that
the affiant’s description in the affidavit is consistent with what the video shows. (ECF
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 17 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

18
No. 39, PageID #186.) 	The United States adds that the affiant was “careful to
explain” that the square-shaped object was consistent with Glock switches that
Mr. Roberson previously possessed, but the affiant did not say that the square-shaped
object was a real Glock switch. 	(Id.) 	The United States goes on to argue that the
color of the square-shaped object should not matter for purposes of probable cause.
(Id., PageID #186–89.) Lastly, the United States argues that even if the video were
a parody, it still supports the affiant’s conclusion that Mr. Roberson “was involved in
selling Glock switches[] and that there was a nexus between that crime and
Roberson’s apartment.” (Id., PageID #189.)
As Defendant notes, this video does not show a real Glock switch. Because of
their illegality, any person who posted a video with a real Glock switch would invite
a federal prosecution. 	Accordingly, it should not be surprising that a person who
wished to traffic in Glock switches would use a stand-in for one in a video. Indeed, in
this stylized video or dramatic reenactment, the text in the screenshot shows, at
minimum, that Mr. Roberson wants a reputation of being a Glock-switch guy.
Because the video does not show a real Glock switch, the Court disregards the last
two 	and 	a 	half 	sentences 	of 	Paragraph 	16 	in 	reviewing 	the 	probable 	cause
determination. Without those sentences, this video still invites viewers to get Glock
switches from Mr. Roberson.
II.A.2.f. Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18 describes a story posted to Mr. Roberson’s Instagram account
with the words, “New Years kick it’s? 	Bring it in with a switch.” 	(ECF No. 21-1,
PageID #95). The paragraph reads:
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 18 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

19
Affiant avers on Friday, December 30th, 2022, he was monitoring
Shyheim Roberson’s Instagram account 4eg_shobbs and observed an
additional story post. This post displayed a black screen with the script
that stated, “New Years kick it’s?” The post included additional text
underneath the aforementioned question that stated, “Bring it in with a
switch.” (See Exhibit H). Affiant avers the subsequent text in this tory
post is referring to a Glock switch. 	In the Affiants experience, it is
common for many individuals to shoot their firearms off to bring in the
New Year. 	Based on the text within this story post, it appears that
Roberson is hinting at the notion of celebrating the New Year by firing
off a fully automatic Glock handgun.
(Id., PageID #86.) 	A screenshot of the Instagram story post was attached to the
affidavit:
(Id., PageID #95.)
Defendant argues that the affiant offers no support for his conclusion that
“Mr. Roberson is hinting at” celebrating the New York by firing off a handgun with a
Glock switch. (ECF No. 21, PageID #75.) The United States argues that the affiant’s
experience “put him in a position to know about people firing guns on New Year’s
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 19 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

20
Eve” and that such gunfire “is not an uncommon occurrence in Cleveland.” (ECF No.
39, PageID #190–191.)
Nothing in this post contains false or misleading information, and the affidavit
attached the screenshot. With this information, the State judge could factor this post
into his own determination of probable cause.
II.A.2.g. Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19 describes a story posted to Mr. Roberson’s Instagram account of
a Glock with switch:
Affiant avers on Tuesday, January 3rd, 2023, at approximately 0210
hours, he observed a new story post added to Shyheim Roberson’s
Instagram account 4eg_shobbs. 	Affiant avers on the story post he
observed an individual sitting in what appears to be the driver’s seat of
an unknown vehicle. 	Additionally, the story post shows the individual
wearing a glove and holding a black/dark gray Glock semi-automatic
handgun with an extended magazine and a Glock switch attached [to]
the rear slide plate. The story post also includes a green box with white
text that reads, “I don’t own the rights to this video”. Affiant avers the
Glock switch shown in the story post has an engraving that appears to
be the Flock company logo. 	Affiant avers that although Roberson
claims to not “own the rights to the video” story post, affiant firmly
believes it is Roberson who is in possession of the Glock handgun
equipped with the Glock switch. 	The size, color, and engraving on the
Glock switch on display in this post is consistent with the Glock switches
observed on aforementioned posts made on Roberson’s Instagram
account (See Exhibit I below).
(ECF No. 21-1, PageID #86.) A screenshot of the Instagram story post was attached
to the affidavit:
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 20 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

21
(Id., PageID #96.)
Defendant concedes that this paragraph contains “indisputable evidence of a
Glock switch[].” 	(ECF No. 21, PageID #75.) 	However, he maintains that “[t]here is
no evidence that switch was in Mr. Roberson’s possession” (id., PageID #76) and that
only one of the “aforementioned posts”—the one described in Paragraph 9—includes
a Glock switch. 	The United States argues that “[n]othing about that statement is
false or misleading” because the affiant did not exaggerate the similarities. (ECF No.
39, PageID #192–93.) 	The affiant never said that the firearms were the same
firearms. (Id.) He concluded only that they were “consistent in appearance.” (Id.)
Even if Mr. Roberson is not the person holding the Glock with the switch in
this post, he is associating himself with the conduct through his personal Instagram
account. 	Beyond that, however, the post contains little beyond the affiant’s naked
assertions based on suspicion, but nothing more. 	Whatever the appearance of the
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 21 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

22
gun and the switch in this post, the affiant could say little more than the switch is
consistent with one in another post by Mr. Roberson. 	For these reasons, the Court
will not consider Paragraph 19, except to the extent that is shows Mr. Roberson
posting content about Glock switches on one of his social media accounts.
II.A.3. Probable Cause
Disregarding Paragraph 9 in its entirety, the last two and a half sentences of
Paragraph 16, and much of Paragraph 19, the balance of Mr. Roberson’s social media
activity, 	as 	reflected 	in 	the 	affidavit 	presented 	to 	the 	State 	judge, 	allows 	a
determination of probable cause. 	Specifically, the posts make it probable that Mr.
Roberson can supply a person with a Glock switch, a device which is illegal under
federal law. Indeed, Paragraph 10 is an open solicitation inviting viewers who might
be interested in such a device to contact Mr. Roberson. Therefore, the inquiry shifts
to whether there is a fair probability that contraband (Glock switches) or evidence of
a crime (trafficking in Glock switches) will be found in a particular place (Mr.
Roberson’s residence).
III.B. Nexus
There must be “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will
be found in a particular place.” 	Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). 	“There
must, in other words, be a nexus between the place to be searched and the evidence
sought.” 	United States v. Brown, 828 F.3d 375, 381 (6th Cir. 2016) (citing United
States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 594 (2004) (en banc)).
Defendant argues that the affidavit “provides no evidence” of him “ever
possessing a Glock switch.” (ECF No. 21, PageID #77–78.) The United States argues
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 22 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

23
that the affidavit “set[] forth how Roberson was displaying Glock switches and
advertising them for sale across a number of social media posts, which spanned
several months” and established Mr. Roberson’s residence. 	(ECF No. 39, PageID
#197.)
Upon review, the affidavit establishes probable cause that Mr. Roberson was,
at a minimum, involved with Glock switches. 	Based on his experience, the affiant
opined that “persons who traffic in illegal firearms frequently keep weapons . . . on or
about their person, or within their possession.” 	(ECF No. 21-1, ¶ 21, PageID #87.)
Also, he attested that “persons who participate in criminal activity and traffic illegal
firearms in the course of this criminal activity frequently keep records of illegal
transactions, money, firearms, weapons, narcotics, and other contraband in safes”
and in personal electronics. 	(Id., ¶¶ 20 & 22, PageID #86–87.) 	Additionally, the
screenshot of the video post described in Paragraph 16 shows Mr. Roberson standing
in what might reasonably be inferred to be his residence. 	(Id., PageID #93–94.)
Indeed, the affiant detailed his internet search which supported his conclusion that
the location of this video is consistent with Mr. Roberson’s residence. 	(Id., ¶ 17,
PageID #85.) Defendant does not dispute that he recorded this video in his residence.
(ECF No. 21, PageID #78.) 	Accordingly, the affidavit establishes a connection
between Mr. Roberson’s social media activity, which provide the facts that establish
probable cause, and Mr. Roberson’s residence. 	Therefore, the nexus requirement is
satisfied.
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 23 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

24
II. 	Request for a Franks Hearing
There are two bases for an evidentiary Franks hearing: false statements and
omissions. 	Each basis has its own standard. 	A defendant is entitled to a Franks
hearing regarding a false statement “if and only if (1) there is a substantial
preliminary 	showing 	that 	specified 	portions 	of 	the 	affiant’s 	averments 	are
deliberately or recklessly false and (2) a finding of probable cause would not be
supported by the remaining content of the affidavit when the allegedly false material
is set to one side.” 	United States v. Campbell, 878 F.2d 170, 171 (6th Cir. 1989). 	A
defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing based on an omission where there is a
preliminary showing that the affiant “engaged in ‘deliberate falsehood’ or ‘reckless
disregard for the truth’ in omitting information” and a finding of probable cause
would not be supported by the affidavit including the omitted portions. United States
v. Atkin, 107 F.3d 1213, 1217 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d
540, 568 n.26 (6th Cir. 1993)). 	“Although material omissions are not immune from
inquiry under Franks, we have recognized that an affidavit which omits potentially
exculpatory information is less likely to present a question of impermissible official
conduct 	than 	one 	which 	affirmatively 	includes 	false 	information” 	because 	“an
allegation 	of 	omission 	‘potentially 	opens 	officers 	to 	endless 	conjecture 	about
investigative leads, fragments of information, or other matter[.]’” Id. (quoting United
States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 301 (4th Cir. 1990)).
Defendant requests a Franks hearing on both grounds. 	He argues that a
hearing will allow him to develop evidence to bolster his arguments for suppression.
Except as discussed with respect to three paragraphs of the affidavit—Paragraph 9,
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 24 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>

25
Paragraph 16, in part, and Paragraph 19, in part—Defendant does not make a
showing that would open the door to a Franks hearing. In the Court’s view, a hearing
is not necessary based on these three paragraphs because, even disregarding them in
their entirety (in the case of Paragraph 9), nearly in their entirety (in the case of
Paragraph 19) or partially (in the case of Paragraph 16), the affidavit still supports a
determination of probable case.
CONCLUSION
The standard of review compels deference to the State judge’s determination
of probable cause. Reading the affidavit in support of the search warrant without the
potentially offending material, the State judge had a substantial basis for concluding
that evidence of Glock switches would be found in Mr. Roberson’s residence. In light
of the high burden for a Franks hearing, the Court cannot say that Defendant meets
that burden on the totality of the facts and circumstances in this case.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to
suppress without a Franks hearing. (ECF No. 21.)
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 1, 2025
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
Case: 1:23-cr-00498-JPC Doc #: 43 Filed: 12/01/25 25 of 25. PageID #: <pageID>