USA v. Price et al (TV2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 3:23-CR-35-TAV-JEM
)
DANIELLE PRICE and 	)
LARRY O. WALKER, II, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case is before the undersigned for report and recommendation on Defendant Danielle
Price’s and Defendant Larry Walker’s joint, reopened suppression motion [Docs. 36, 52 & 117].
The undersigned permitted Defendants to reopen the suppression hearing and granted a hearing
pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), on four alleged false statements in the
affidavit supporting a search warrant for their residence [Doc. 129 p. 11]:
(1) 	“The female driver did admit to purchasing Heroin from one
of the targets of this Search Warrant, Kenneth Roberts”
[Doc. 36-1 p. 5];
(2) 	“Before the K-9’s arrival, the female did admit to Heroin
being in the vehicle” [id.];
(3) 	“Investigators observed the female performing actions in her
lap that are consistent with prepping narcotics for use”
[id. at 4]; and
(4) 	“Investigators also found that the female was preparing lines
of Heroin on her phone screen for snorting” [id. at 5].
Defendants argue that the affiant deliberately or recklessly included these false statements in the
affidavit and that the statements are necessary to probable cause [Doc. 117 pp. 4–5].
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

2
After considering the testimony and exhibits, the parties’ arguments, and the relevant case
law, the undersigned finds that only the second of the four statements is false and false only as to
the timing of when the female driver admitted heroin was in her vehicle. Nevertheless, the
undersigned finds that Defendants fail to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
inaccurate portion of this statement is material to probable cause, whether considered individually
or in combination with the conceded false statement on the location where Defendant Walker
rented vehicles. Accordingly, the undersigned again recommends that the District Judge DENY
Defendants’ suppression motions [Docs. 36 & 52].
I. 	BACKGROUND
The Indictment charges Defendants Price and Walker with conspiring to distribute fifty
grams of methamphetamine and forty grams of fentanyl (Count One) from September 1, 2022,
through March 7, 2023 [Doc. 11 p. 1]. Both Defendants are also charged with possession of
methamphetamine and fentanyl with intent to distribute (Count Two) and possession of firearms
in furtherance of drug trafficking (Count Three), both allegedly occurring on March 7, 2023
[Id. at 1–2]. Defendant Walker is further charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm on
March 7, 2023 (Count Four) [Id. at 2]. These charges arise, at least in part, from the March 7, 2023
search of a residence at 1940 Old Callahan Drive in Knoxville, Tennessee (“the residence”)
[See Doc. 66 pp. 1–2].
On April 27, 2023, Defendant Price, who at that time was represented by Assistant Federal
Defender Benjamin Sharp, moved to suppress evidence seized from her residence pursuant to a
search warrant (“the suppression motion”) [Doc. 36]. Defendant Price argued that the affidavit of
Knox County Sheriff’s Office (“KCSO”) Detective Jeff Neely failed to provide probable cause for
a search warrant because it does not demonstrate a nexus between the residence and criminal
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

3
activity [Id. at 3–5]. On June 16, 2023, Defendant Walker, at that time represented by Attorney
Gerald Gulley, moved to adopt Defendant Price’s suppression motion [Doc. 49]. On June 30, 2025,
Defendant Walker filed a Motion for Determination of Validity of Search Warrant Based on
Franks v. Delaware (“the Franks motion”), arguing that Detective Neely’s affidavit contains false
statements and material omissions that impact probable cause [Doc. 52 pp. 3–4]. Defendant Price
subsequently made an oral motion to join in Defendant Walker’s Franks motion [Doc. 55 p. 4
(Transcript of Aug. 9, 2023 Suppression Hearing)].
The parties appeared before the undersigned on August 9, 2023, for a motion hearing on
Defendant Price’s suppression motion, Defendant Walker’s Franks motion, and each Defendant’s
motion to join in the other’s motion [See Doc. 53, Minutes]. The Court heard the parties’
arguments, permitted the Government to file a late response to the Franks motion and a late exhibit,
and allowed post-hearing briefs [See Docs. 56, 59 & 60].
On 	October 	3, 	2023, 	the 	undersigned 	entered 	a 	Report 	and 	Recommendation
recommending denial of the suppression and Franks motions [Doc. 66]. As to the Franks issue,
Defendants alleged one false statement—that Defendant Walker rented vehicles from Avis in
Knoxville—and two material omissions—that the affidavit provides no information on the
reliability of the confidential informants and gives no information that police surveillance resulted
in observations connecting Defendants with the purported drug transactions on February 28, 2023,
or on March 7, 2023 [Id. at 13]. The undersigned found:
1. 	that both Defendants Price and Walker have standing to
challenge the search of the residence;
2. 	that Detective Neely’s affidavit provides probable cause to
search 	the 	residence 	because 	it 	demonstrates 	a 	nexus
between the residence and drug trafficking;
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

4
3. 	that there is no evidence that Detective Neely intentionally
or recklessly included a false statement in the affidavit or
made an omission that is material to probable cause; and
4. 	that law enforcement searched the residence in good faith
reliance on the search warrant.
[Id. at 20]. On December 4, 2023, following the parties’ objections and response [Docs. 67, 68
& 69], the District Judge denied the suppression and Franks motions and adopted the Report and
Recommendation in whole [Doc. 70 pp. 2, 29].
On January 26, 2024, Defendant Walker filed a pro se motion for new counsel and an
interlocutory appeal of the suppression ruling [Doc. 74]. Defendant Walker’s interlocutory appeal
was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction [Docs. 80 & 81]. On March 6, 2024, the
undersigned substituted Attorney Nathaniel Evans as counsel for Defendant Walker [Doc. 84]. On
May 16, 2024, the undersigned substituted Attorney Mike Whalen as counsel for Defendant
Walker [Doc. 95]. On September 11, 2024, Defendant Walker moved the Court to reopen the
suppression and Franks motions because he was required to proceed at the suppression hearing
with counsel whom he did not trust [Doc. 103 p. 4; see Doc. 104 (amended motion)]. The
undersigned denied Defendant Walker’s request to reopen the suppression hearing, finding it
“untimely, unsupported by law or fact, and prejudicial to the prompt administration of justice”
[Doc. 108 pp. 6–7]. Defendant Walker filed an Objection to Report and Recommendation1 that
Defendant Larry Walker’s Motion to Reopen His Motion to Suppress and for Franks Hearing Be
Denied [Doc. 112], which remains pending.
On November 14, 2024, the undersigned substituted current counsel Attorney Michael
Menefee to represent Defendant Price [Doc. 111]. On February 13, 2025, Defendant Price moved
1 	The undersigned denied Defendant’s motion to reopen in a Memorandum and Order, not a
Report and Recommendation [See Doc. 108].
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 4 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

5
to reopen the suppression hearing, arguing that on January 31, 2025, the Government provided
video footage from a body camera and an in-car camera depicting “the events immediately
preceding the search warrant” [Doc. 117 p. 2]. She maintained that the newly disclosed video
footage reveals several statements in the search warrant affidavit are false: that a female driver,
whom officers stopped on the morning of the execution of the search warrant, admitted to
purchasing heroin from Kenneth Roberts; that before the arrival of a K-9 unit, the female driver
admitted that heroin was in the vehicle; and that officers observed the female driver “performing
actions in her lap that are consistent with prepping narcotics for use” and “found that the female
was preparing lines of [h]eroin on her phone screen for snorting” [Id. at 3–4]. Defendant Price
asserted the affiant included these statements in the affidavit knowingly, intentionally, or with
reckless disregard for the truth, and for the purpose of misleading the issuing judge [Id. at 4]. She
argued that these false statements were necessary to probable cause as both evidence of drug
trafficking and to corroborate the reliability of the confidential source [Id.]. Defendant Price
maintained that these statements, when combined with the misrepresentation exposed at the initial
hearing, require the Court to conduct a Franks hearing [Id.].
The Government responded in opposition to reopening the suppression hearing [Doc. 121
p. 1]. It conceded that one of the statements—that the female admitted that heroin was in the
vehicle before the K-9 arrived—“appears to be false” [Id. at 2]. Despite this concession, the
Government argued the Court should deny the motion to reopen because the affiant did not
knowingly or recklessly include this statement in the affidavit and the statement is not necessary
to probable cause [Id.]. The Government stated that new defense counsel requested that it seek
video footage of the stop of a female described in the affidavit [Id. at 3]. According to the
Government, pursuant to this inquiry, the Knoxville Police Department (“KPD”) provided
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 5 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

6
previously unknown body camera footage to the Government, which disclosed it to Defendant
Price in February 2025 [Id.]. The Government argued the single false statement is not necessary
to probable cause [Id. at 7].
In reply, Defendant Price argued that the combination of the false statements, including the
affiant’s statement that the female identified Kenneth Roberts as her heroin supplier, is material to
probable cause [Doc. 123 pp. 3–4].
On February 25, 2025, the undersigned substituted Attorney Christopher Rodgers as
counsel for Defendant Walker [Doc. 120]. On March 18, 2025, Defendant Walker moved to adopt
Defendant Price’s motion to reopen, stating that the grounds alleged in the motion also apply to
him [Doc. 126 p. 1]. The Government did not respond to Defendant Walker’s motion.
On May 9, 2025, the undersigned granted Defendants’ joint motion to reopen the
suppression hearing and for a Franks hearing on four statements in the affidavit which Defendants
allege are false [Doc. 129 pp. 8–9, 11]:
(1) 	“The female driver did admit to purchasing Heroin from one
of the targets of this Search Warrant, Kenneth Roberts”
[Doc. 36-1 p. 5];
(2) 	“Before the K-9’s arrival, the female did admit to Heroin
being in the vehicle” [id.];
(3) 	“Investigators observed the female performing actions in her
lap that are consistent with prepping narcotics for use”
[id. at 4]; and
(4) 	“Investigators also found that the female was preparing lines
of Heroin on her phone screen for snorting” [id. at 5].
[Doc. 129 pp. 8–9]. The undersigned found the late disclosed body camera video called the veracity
of these statements into question [Id. at 9]. From reviewing the video recording, the undersigned
concluded that Defendant had made a sufficient preliminary showing that at least the affiant’s
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 6 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

7
statement that the female identified Kenneth Roberts as her supplier when shown a photograph on
the affiant’s cell phone was intentionally or recklessly false [Id. at 10]. The undersigned also found
Defendants made a prima facie showing that the four statements were material:
[T]he information regarding the stop of the female on March 7,
2023, is the only verified drug transaction described in the affidavit.
The affidavit contains no controlled buys. Nor does it contain
information 	from 	confidential 	informants 	present 	during 	drug
transactions or who observed drugs or other evidence of drug
trafficking at the residence. The female’s identification of her
supplier is therefore material to the probable cause analysis.
[Id.]. Accordingly, the undersigned permitted a Franks hearing [Id. at 11].
A. 	Franks Hearing on June 4, 2025
The parties appeared for a Franks hearing on June 4, 2025 [Doc. 130, Minutes]. Assistant
United States Attorney Brent N. Jones appeared on behalf of the Government. Attorney Michael
B. Menefee represented Defendant Price. Attorney Christopher Rogers represented Defendant
Walker. Both Defendants were also present.
The Government presented the testimony of KCSO Detective Jeff Neely [Doc. 145,
Transcript p. 7]. He stated that in March 2023, he worked as a detective on the Drug-Related Death
Task Force [Id. at 8]. According to Detective Neely, the eight-person task force is comprised of
two county officers and six city officers [Id.]. He related that when the task force received a report
of a drug-related death, they would “work[ the case] backwards to try to identify the dealer” [Id.].
He said the task force handled approximately five hundred cases each year [Id.].
Detective Neely stated that he worked on a case involving a deceased male, Andrew
Anderson, which led to the investigation of Danielle Price, Larry Walker, and Kenneth Roberts
[Id. at 9]. Detective Neely was the affiant on a search warrant related to this investigation and
signed on March 7, 2023 [Id.]. Detective Neely recalled that a section of the affidavit described
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 7 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

8
surveillance and a hand-to-hand drug transaction occurring on March 7, 2023 [Id. at 10]. He stated
that he was conducting surveillance that day at a business across the street from the residence and
responded to the scene sometime after an officer approached the driver involved in the exchange
[Id. at 10–11]. Detective Neely stated that he intended to seek a search warrant for the residence
[Id. at 11]. He said when he arrived on the scene where the driver was stopped, an officer was
already talking with the driver in the parking lot [Id.]. Detective Neely said his practice was to
allow the officer to continue speaking with the individual and for the officer to brief him on the
conversation afterward [Id.]. He confirmed that is what happened here [Id. at 12].
Detective Neely said Detective John Holmes’s body camera recorded some of the
conversation with the driver [Id.]. He said based on the information from Detective Holmes, he
obtained the search warrant in this case [Id.]. Detective Neely said he spoke with the driver briefly
at the scene and showed her a picture of Kenneth Roberts, an individual law enforcement had been
surveilling [Id. at 12–13]. He said the week before, law enforcement identified Roberts through
surveillance of the residence, car rental records, and a photograph [Id. at 13]. Detective Neely said
on March 7, he did not know what Defendant Walker looked like [Id.].
Detective Neely affirmed that the affidavit states that before the K-9 arrived, the female
admitted that heroin was in the vehicle [Id.]. He acknowledged this statement is not accurate [Id.]
He denied trying to mislead the judge with this statement [Id. at 13–14]. Detective Neely explained
that he thought he was told that the female admitted heroin was in the vehicle before the K-9
arrived, but instead, she admitted heroin was in the car after the dog alerted but before officers
entered her vehicle to conduct a search [Id. at 14].
Detective Neely said the body camera recording shows that Detective Holmes remarked to
the female that powder was on the screen of her cell phone and the female stated the phone was
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 8 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

9
on her lap [Id.]. Detective Neely states that later in the conversation recorded on the body camera
video, the female says, “I was about to do it on my phone, and I covered it up with my coat when
you guys walked up” [Id.]. He agrees this conversation occurred before he arrived and was relayed
to him by another officer [Id. at 14–15]. After viewing a portion of Detective Holmes’s body
camera video from 0:45 to 2:06,2 Detective Neely agreed that the female was bending over while
sitting in the front seat of her Ford Focus [Id. at 15–16].
Detective Neely acknowledged that from approximately one minute into the body camera
video through 22:50, when the dog alerted, the female had not admitted that she had heroin
[Id. at 16]. The Government played a section of Detective Holmes’s body camera video starting at
22:50 on the recording [Exh. 1 11:55:45]. An officer off screen states that the dog “hit” on the
vehicle [Id. at 11:55:48]. At 23:27 on the recording, the driver agrees controlled substances are in
the car and states they are in the console in a drawer [Id. at 11:56:21–28]. At 25:32 on the
recording, an officer off screen says, “I found what was on your phone and in your seat”
[Id. at 11:58:27–28]. A few seconds later, the driver says she was “fixing to snort it,” and Detective
Holmes says that is what he thought she was doing based on the way she was moving about
[Id. at 11:58:38–43].
On the video, the driver confirms that she went to Food City to meet her supplier
[Id. at 11:59:38–41]. She states the person she was meeting was driving a four-door, burgundy
Toyota SUV [Id. at 12:00:55–12:01:03]. The driver states she met with a black male who goes by
“C” [Id. at 12:01:10–14]. She said she thinks C is from Detroit, and he has a brother who said his
name is George [Id. at 12:01:21–30]. The driver confirms that C met her “today” [Id. at 12:01:58–
2 	The video recording from Detective Holmes’s body camera shows that as Detective
Holmes walked up to the Ford Focus and knocked on the window, the driver was leaning over the
passenger seat [Exh. 1 11:33:58–11:34:03].
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 9 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

10
12:02:00]. The driver says that she thinks C and his brother stay around Callahan Drive, and she
has met C before at the Asian Café near Callahan Drive [Id. at 12:03:22–44]. She says that both C
and George are “here,” but George seems to be gone right now to “get more stuff” [Id. at 12:08:02–
06]. She says George and C drive different vehicles and agrees that they are rental vehicles
[Id. at 12:08:12–17]. The driver says she mainly deals with George but has had to deal with his
brother since George has been gone for a couple of days [Id. at 12:08:33–12:09:30]. She says for
the last two months she bought at least $100 of drugs from George or C daily [Id. at 12:09:31–45].
At 47:38 on the video, Detective Holmes introduces Detective Neely to the driver
[Id. at 12:20:32–34]. Detective Neely shows the driver a photo on his cell phone, and she identifies
the person in the photo as George [Id. at 12:20:40–48]. Detective Neely asks if this is who she met
with today, and she says, “No” [Id. at 12:20:49–52]. While Detective Neely is standing with the
driver and Detective Holmes, the driver confirms Detective Holmes’s statement that today she met
with George’s brother “C” [Id. at 12:20:57–12:21:00].
Regarding this last video clip, Detective Neely testified that he showed the female a
photograph of Kenneth Roberts [Doc. 145 p. 17]. Detective Neely said he did not have a
photograph of Defendant Walker with him that day [Id. at 17–18]. He agreed the only photograph
he had to show the driver was of Kenneth Roberts and that this was why he included in the affidavit
that 	the 	female 	admitted 	purchasing 	heroin 	from 	Roberts 	[Id. 	at 	18]. 	Detective 	Neely
acknowledged that the female told investigators, and it was relayed to him, that the female said
she got the heroin from C that day [Id.]. He agreed that C could have been Walker or someone else
and that the female knew him only as C [Id.]. Detective Neely agreed that he stated in the affidavit,
“The female driver did admit to purchasing heroin from one of the targets of the Search Warrant,
Kenneth Roberts” [Id. at 19]. He denied that he was trying to mislead with this statement [Id.].
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 10 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

11
The Government played one more segment of the video in which an officer on the scene
tells Detective Holmes to be careful with the driver’s cell phone because it has powder on it
[Id. at 12:22:10–13]. Detective Neely resumed his testimony and said after meeting with the female
driver, he finished his affidavit and applied for the search warrant [Id. at 20].
On cross-examination by Attorney Menefee, Detective Neely testified that throughout his
investigation, he made notes in a Word document so that he could paste information from his notes
into the affidavit when he prepared his affidavit for a search warrant [Id.]. Counsel began cross-
examining Detective Neely on statements on page one of the affidavit [Id. at 21–25]. The Court
conducted a sidebar, and defense counsel argued that once granted a Franks hearing, they could
question the affiant about every statement in the affidavit and are not limited to the statements they
alleged are false [Id. at 26–28]. The Government objected to cross-examination of the witness
beyond the four allegedly false statements [Id. at 28–29]. The Court adjourned the hearing and
permitted briefing on the applicable legal standard and appropriate scope of the Franks hearing
[Id. at 31, 33]. The Court instructed the witness that he was excused but subject to recall later
[Id. at 34].
In their briefs, Defendants argued they should be allowed to cross-examine the affiant on
the veracity of all sworn statements in the affidavit, as well as his investigative processes, sources
of information, material omissions, and assertions in other sworn statements [Doc. 131 p. 8;
Doc. 132 pp. 5–6]. They asserted that such broad cross-examination is necessary to show the
affidavit lacks probable cause, to impeach the affiant’s credibility, to show the affiant’s knowledge
and intent, and to show that he did not act in good faith in relying on the search warrant [Doc. 131
pp. 2–8; Doc. 132 pp. 5–6]. The Government maintained that direct examination was limited to
the four alleged false statements and that cross-examination must also be so limited [Doc. 134
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 11 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

12
p. 5]. It also argued that a Franks hearing is limited to those issues for which Defendants have
made a substantial preliminary showing of deliberate or reckless and material falsehood
[Id. at 4–5].
On July 10, 2025, the undersigned found the scope of the Franks hearing limited to the
four alleged false statements initially raised by Defendant Price and joined by Defendant Walker
and to the effect of those four statements on probable cause in combination with the previously
conceded 	false 	statement 	that 	Defendant 	Walker 	rented 	vehicles 	in 	Knoxville
[Doc. 135 pp. 2, 8–9].
B. 	Continuation of Franks Hearing on September 17, 2025
The parties appeared for a continuation of the Franks hearing on September 17, 2025.
AUSA Jones appeared on behalf of the Government. Mr. Menefee represented Defendant Price,
and Mr. Rogers represented Defendant Walker. Both Defendants appeared for the hearing.
The Government recalled Detective Jeff Neely. On cross-examination by Mr. Menefee,
Detective 	Neely 	testified 	that 	the 	portion 	of 	his 	affidavit 	at 	issue 	is 	the 	section 	titled
“Surveillance/Deal,” which describes a drug transaction on March 7, 2023, and law enforcement’s
interview of a female participant shortly thereafter [Doc. 36-1 pp. 4–5 (affidavit)].3 He agreed that
the affidavit states on March 7, 2023, officers conducting surveillance at the address saw a Toyota
Highlander leave the residence.4 Detective Neely agreed the affidavit relates the investigation
3 	The Government introduced Detective Neely’s affidavit as Exhibit 2.
4 	The affidavit states that law enforcement followed the Highlander to a grocery store and
saw it park beside a Ford Focus [Exh. 1 p. 4]. After the drivers spoke briefly, the Highlander and
the Focus left the parking lot and went to a residential area [Id.]. Surveilling officers saw the
vehicles stop on the road and observed a “hand-to-hand” drug transaction between the driver of
the Highlander and the white female driver of the Focus [Id.]. Some officers followed the Focus,
which parked in a McDonald’s parking lot, and others followed the Highlander, which immediately
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 12 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

13
continued when law enforcement interviewed the female driver of a Ford Focus. Detective Neely
agreed that the affidavit states that before a K-9 arrived on the scene, the female admitted that
heroin was in her vehicle. He stated that he was not present when Knoxville Police Department
Detective John Holmes began speaking with the female. He said the female’s statements were told
to him later. Detective Neely said he was told that the female admitted drugs were in her car before
the K-9 alerted, when instead she admitted drugs were in her car after the K-9 alerted.
Detective Neely stated that Detective Holmes interviewed the woman and Detective
Holmes’s body camera captured their conversation. He agreed the recording reveals that the female
told Detective Holmes that she met with a man named “C” and that she also buys drugs from C’s
brother, George. Detective Neely said Detective Holmes did not tell him that the female identified
either Kenneth Roberts or Defendant Walker. Detective Neely stated that he showed the female a
picture of Kenneth Roberts, and the female identified the person in the photograph as George. He
agreed that the affidavit does not relate that Kenneth Roberts has an alias other than on the first
page and does not identify his alias.
Detective Neely stated that he has worked in law enforcement for twenty years. He said in
this case, the female was shown a photograph of someone whose name was known to law
enforcement, and she gave the person’s nickname. He agreed that he did not show the photograph
of Roberts to the issuing judge, nor did he tell the judge that Roberts was identified using a
photograph. He agreed he did not show the female a photo line-up but, instead, only showed her
one photograph.
returned to the residence [Id. at 4–5]. These parts of the affidavit were read into the record at the
hearing.
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 13 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

14
Detective Neely agreed that the affidavit states that officers observed the female perform
actions in her lap consistent with preparing narcotics for use. He said that the conversation on the
body camera video shows the female admitted to using her phone screen as a surface from which
to snort drugs. Detective Neely said the officer did not see the phone in the female’s lap because
she put it on the passenger seat as the officer approached her car.
Detective Neely said his affidavit states “[t]he female driver did admit to purchasing heroin
from one of the targets of the search warrant, Kenneth Roberts.” He explained that this sentence
says the female admitted buying drugs from Roberts at an unspecified time. Detective Neely said
he was not sure what the issuing judge thought after reading this sentence.
Detective Neely agreed that the female did not buy drugs from Roberts during the exchange
observed by the surveillance team. Detective Neely said law enforcement saw Kenneth Roberts
driving vehicles from the residence and “doing deals” in the days preceding the March 7
transaction. He said up to this point, the surveilling officers had not seen Defendant Walker at the
residence. He stated that he did not know Defendant Walker was the person involved in the
transaction with the female until they searched the residence and found him there.
Detective Neely said at the time the female identified C and George during the interview
in the parking lot, the officers did not know if the female had C and George mixed up. He said by
March 7, 2023, the investigation had revealed Defendant Walker as a person of interest, that
Walker came and went from the residence, and that he rented vehicles that were seen at the
residence. Detective Neely said, however, on March 7, law enforcement though Kenneth Roberts
was involved in the transaction with the female. According to Detective Neely, upon the execution
of the search warrant, the officers discovered that Defendant Walker had been the person involved
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 14 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

15
in the transaction with the female because the residence was under constant surveillance and only
Defendants Walker and Price were inside when the officers entered.
Detective Neely agreed that although the affidavit states Defendant Walker rented vehicles
at Avis in Knoxville, instead he rented the vehicles out of state. Detective Neely stated this was a
mistake on his part. He agreed the spreadsheet [Exh. 3] that was a late exhibit to the initial
suppression hearing was prepared by Avis. Detective Neely acknowledged that the spreadsheet
contains information on vehicles rented after March 7, 2023, and that he relied on other paperwork
when he prepared his affidavit. He agreed that the other paperwork [Exh. 4] did not contain
Defendant Walker’s name.
On cross-examination by Mr. Rogers, Detective Neely said he witnessed what appeared to
be a hand-to-hand drug exchange between the female and the driver of the Highlander. He said the
two vehicles were facing in opposite directions and stopped in the middle of the street. He said the
female got out, went to the other vehicle’s window, and a hand came out of the window and gave
her something. He said the female got back into her vehicle, and both vehicles left. He agreed that
he did not see any drugs or cash during the exchange.
Defendant Neely acknowledged that he was the affiant on a Knox County arrest warrant
for simple possession and exchange of controlled substances for the female involved in the March
7 transaction. He agreed that his narrative on the arrest warrant does not mention a hand-to-hand
exchange. Detective Neely said the narrative in the arrest warrant begins with the female pulling
into the McDonald’s parking lot.
Detective Neely said Detective Holmes’s body camera video was not his video, and he did
not know it existed. He said he did not have a body camera at this time and was not aware that
Detective Holmes was wearing a body camera.
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 15 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

16
Detective Neely stated that the photograph he showed the female on March 7, 2023, was a
picture of Kenneth Roberts. He agreed that the female did not buy drugs from Kenneth Roberts
that day. He said the affidavit says the female bought drugs from Kenneth Roberts but does not
specify that she bought drugs from him on March 7.
Detective Neely agreed that he linked Defendant Walker to this investigation of an
overdose victim through cell phone records showing that Walker called the victim. He said this
information came from data from the phone numbers of Walker and the victim analyzed by the
phone carriers.
On redirect examination by AUSA Jones, Detective Neely testified that on the day of the
hand-to-hand exchange involving the female, he was on the surveillance team following the
female’s Ford Focus. He said he was not present when the female was stopped in the McDonald’s
parking lot. At the time of the stop, he knew the names of Defendant Walker, Kenneth Roberts,
and Danielle Price. Detective Neely said he arrived at the McDonald’s parking lot six or seven
minutes after Detective Holmes began talking to the female. He said when he arrived, Detective
Holmes seemed to have developed a rapport with the female, and he did not interrupt the interview.
Detective Neely agreed that around 48:10 on Detective Holmes’s body camera video, he
approached the female and showed her a photograph. Detective Neely said the photograph was
either a driver’s license photograph or a mug shot. He agreed it was common for investigators to
show photographs. Detective Neely denied that he had a picture of Defendant Walker on his phone
and said he had only a photograph of Kenneth Roberts. He agreed that the female identified the
photograph of Roberts as “George,” not Kenneth Roberts. He also agreed that the female said she
bought drugs from C, not George, that day. Detective Neely acknowledged that he could have been
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 16 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

17
clearer in his affidavit. He said he did not use the nicknames C or George in his affidavit because
he was confused by them, having only seen Kenneth Roberts at the residence during surveillance.
Detective Neely said the information he provides the prosecutor is normally an exact
replica of his case file and that he would typically retain a driver’s license photograph used for
identification in his case file. He stated that the photograph of Kenneth Roberts could have been
left out of the information produced to the prosecutor during the copying process. Detective Neely
stated he would typically pull up a driver’s license photograph on his phone if the individual is
local, but for an out-of-state person, he would use a physical picture in his possession.
Detective Neely testified regarding the car rental records, much of his communication with
Avis was by telephone. He said when he ended the call, he would tell the representative that he
needed copies of what they discussed. He acknowledged that his statement in the affidavit of the
location where5 Defendant Walker rented a vehicle was not accurate.
On recross-examination by Mr. Menefee, Detective Neely said the KCSO records division
sent him a picture of Kenneth Roberts. He said that he printed the picture and then took a picture
of it with his cell phone to have for identification purposes during surveillance. He said he does
not keep these photographs on his phone but retains them in his file. Detective Neely clarified that
he was not confused about the identity of Kenneth Roberts, but he was confused about the
nicknames provided by the female and which nickname went with which person. He stated that
law enforcement thought Kenneth Roberts was at the residence that day. He agreed that he learned
who was present at the time officers arrested Defendants Price and Walker during the execution
5 	AUSA Jones asked Detective Neely whether his statement that Larry Walker rented a car
in Detroit was inaccurate, and Detective Neely agreed that it was. The affidavit, however, states
“Larry Walker consistently rents vehicles from Avis in Knoxville” [Doc. 36-1 p. 4]. The
undersigned finds that Detective Neely acknowledged this statement is false.
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 17 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

18
of the search warrant. Detective Neely said he obtained the search warrant before he arrested
Defendant Walker.
On recross-examination by Mr. Rogers, Detective Neely stated that the circumstances were
exigent because the officers thought the individual who sold drugs to the female and whom they
thought was Kenneth Roberts knew they were talking to the female in the parking lot. He said they
were in a hurry to get the search warrant to prevent the destruction of evidence.
The undersigned heard the parties’ arguments and took the matter under advisement. This
issue is ripe for adjudication.
II. 	ANALYSIS
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches or seizures of
“their persons, houses, papers, and effects[.]” U.S. Const. amend IV. It requires that law
enforcement have probable cause and obtain a search warrant before searching a residence. Collins
v. Virginia, 584 U.S. 586, 593 (2018) (“At the [Fourth] Amendment’s very core stands the right
of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.”
(citation omitted & modified)).
Law enforcement obtained a search warrant for Defendants’ residence6 based upon the
affidavit of Detective Neely. An affidavit supporting a search warrant is presumed to be valid.
United States v. Bowman, No. 24-5835, 2025 WL 1721155, at *2 (6th Cir. June 20, 2025) (citing
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978)). “A defendant challenging the validity of a search
warrant’s affidavit bears a heavy burden.” United States v. Bateman, 945 F.3d 997, 1008
(6th Cir. 2019); see also United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455, 470–71 (6th Cir.) (en banc)
6 	The undersigned previously found both Defendants had standing to challenge the search of
the residence because Defendant Price was the lessee and Defendant Walker was at least an
overnight guest [Doc. 66 pp. 4–5 n.2].
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 18 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

19
(explaining that the burden is a heavy one), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 603 (2024). To warrant a
Franks hearing, a defendant “must make a ‘substantial preliminary showing that a false statement
knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant
in the warrant affidavit.’” United States v. Crawford, 943 F.3d 297, 309 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting
Franks, 438 U.S. at 155–56). “‘The allegedly false statement,’ moreover, must be ‘necessary to
the finding of probable cause.’” Id. (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 155–56). A defendant challenging
the veracity of statements in the affidavit cannot rely on “‘conclusory’” assertions, Bowman,
2025 WL 1721155, at *2 (quoting Sanders, 106 F.4th at 471), but instead, must identify “‘specific
false statements’” that are accompanied by an offer of proof, id. (quoting United States v. Green,
572 F. App’x 438, 442 (6th Cir. 2014)).
Here, Defendants Price and Walker made the substantial preliminary showing regarding
four statements in the affidavit [Doc. 129 pp. 8–9]:
(1) “The female driver did admit to purchasing Heroin from one of
the targets of this Search Warrant, Kenneth Roberts” [Doc. 36-
1 p. 5];
(2) “Before the K-9’s arrival, the female did admit to Heroin being
in the vehicle” [id.];
(3) “Investigators observed the female performing actions in her lap
that are consistent with prepping narcotics for use” [id. at 4]; and
(4) “Investigators also found that the female was preparing lines of
Heroin on her phone screen for snorting” [id. at 5].
The showing was based upon a late-discovered video recording from the body camera of an officer
on the scene of the March 7, 2023 stop and questioning of the female driver referenced in the
affidavit [Doc. 129 p. 9]. Thus, the undersigned found a Franks hearing was warranted [Id. at 10].
In Franks, the Supreme Court held that if the defendant makes the “substantial preliminary
showing” described above, the Fourth Amendment mandates a hearing if the defendant requests
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 19 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

20
one. 438 U.S. at 156. “In a Franks hearing, a court determines whether to suppress the fruits of an
executed search warrant, where the warrant was the result of a false statement.” Crawford,
943 F.3d at 309 (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171). Again, Defendants shoulder a “heavy burden” at
a Franks hearing. Sanders, 106 F.4th at 471. “In the event that at that hearing the allegation of
perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence,
and, with the affidavit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is
insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the
search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.”
Franks, 438 U.S. at 156; Cooper v. United States, No. 24-5634, 2024 WL 5319016, at *4
(6th Cir. Nov. 22, 2024) (“If the defendant clears that hurdle [(the preliminary showing)], he is
entitled to a hearing during which he has the burden to prove the alleged perjury and that the rest
of the affidavit is insufficient to establish probable cause.” (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 156)).
The Franks hearing, like the preliminary showing, requires the Court to evaluate the
sufficiency of probable cause in the absence of the alleged false statement or statements. Sanders,
106 F.4th at 471 (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 156, 169–70). In so doing, all the other statements in
the 	affidavit 	retain 	their 	presumption 	of 	validity. 	Accord 	United 	States 	v. 	Shaffer,
238 F. Supp. 3d 913, 920 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 3, 2017) (observing that the defendant’s “speculative,
conclusory” allegations of false statements are insufficient to trigger a Franks hearing and to hold
otherwise would nullify the presumption of validity afforded the search warrant affidavit and
“subvert the purpose of the ‘substantial preliminary showing’ standard—which is ‘to prevent the
misuse of a veracity hearing for purposes of discovery or obstruction’” (quoting Franks,
438 U.S. at 170)), aff’d, 781 F. App’x 404 (6th Cir. 2019). Thus, if Defendants can prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that one or more of the four statements are false, were intentionally
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 20 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

21
or recklessly included in the affidavit, and are material to probable cause, the evidence seized
pursuant 	to 	the 	search 	warrant 	must 	be 	suppressed. 	See 	United 	States 	v. 	Chapman,
112 F. App’x 469, 471 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Bennett, 905 F.2d 931, 934
(6th Cir. 1990)).
Evaluating the alleged false statements here, the undersigned finds Defendants fail to carry
their burden of showing the statements are both intentionally or recklessly false and material to
probable cause.
A. 	Purchase of Drugs from Kenneth Roberts
At the end of the paragraph describing the interview of the female driver of the Ford Focus
and the alert of the drug detection dog on her vehicle, the affidavit states “[t]he female driver did
admit to purchasing Heroin from one of the targets of this Search Warrant, Kenneth Roberts”
[Doc. 36-1 p. 5]. Defendants argue that this statement is false because Detective Holmes’s body
camera video shows that that the driver said she met C to buy drugs on the day of the stop and
regularly purchases drugs from C’s brother George [Doc. 117 p. 3]. They contend that “[a]t no
time during the stop did the female driver implicate Kenneth Roberts, Larry Walker, II, or Danielle
Price” [Id.].
At the September 17 hearing, defense counsel7 argued that that Detective Neely
deliberately included carefully constructed false statements in his affidavit and omitted important
information. Defendants asserted the statement in the affidavit that the female admitted purchasing
drugs from Kenneth Roberts relates to the transaction with the driver of the Toyota Highlander
7 	Mr. Menefee made the specific arguments regarding the alleged false statements in the
affidavit, and Mr. Rogers joined in these arguments. Mr. Rogers added that the Court should
carefully weigh the validity and import of the statements because the search warrant is for the
search of a home.
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 21 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

22
and, thus, is false because the female did not identify the driver of the Highlander as Kenneth
Roberts. Instead, the female said she bought drugs from a man named C who had a brother named
George. Defense counsel argued that the affidavit does not mention the aliases C or George, does
not associate C or George with anyone linked to the residence, nor does it mention that the female
identified George from a photo. Defendants assert that although Detective Neely testified that he
was confused by the female’s comments regarding C and George, Detective Neely failed to
communicate that confusion in the affidavit. Instead, Detective Neely states in the affidavit that
the female identified Kenneth Roberts as the individual from whom she bought drugs on March 7,
when Detective Neely knew that was not true.
Defendants also argued that this false statement (that the female admitted purchasing
heroin from Kenneth Roberts) is essential to probable cause because it provides “the direct link”
or nexus between the residence and criminal activity. Defense counsel maintained that aside from
this statement, the only evidence tied to the residence is an overdose death from September 2022,
a confidential informant saying cars and people are frequently coming and going from the
residence, and rental records showing rental cars parked at the residence. Defendants maintain that
this remaining information is insufficient to show that evidence of drug trafficking would be at the
residence.
Upon review, the video recording from Detective Holmes’s body camera shows that the
female identified a photograph of as a person whom she knew as George. The video also shows
that the female said she purchased drugs from George and his brother C daily for the last two
months and that she mostly deals with George. Detective Neely testified that the photograph he
showed the female was of Kenneth Roberts. Thus, the body camera video combined with Detective
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 22 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

23
Neely’s testimony shows that the statement in the affidavit that the female driver of the Ford Focus
said she purchased heroin from Kenneth Roberts is not false.
Defendants argue that the statement identifying Kenneth Roberts is misleading because the
female told Detective Holmes and Detective Neely that she did not purchase heroin from George
on March 7, 2023, but instead from C. But even if the statement identifying Kenneth Roberts as
the female’s heroin supplier is viewed as misleading, the identity of the individual driving the
Toyota Highlander is not material to probable cause.8 Officers surveilled the Highlander as it left
the residence, met with the driver of the Ford Focus in the Food City parking lot, and traveled with
the Ford Focus to a residential area. Officers observed the driver of the Ford Focus engaged in
what appeared to be a drug transaction with the driver of the Highlander. Officers then followed
both vehicles, observing the Highlander go directly back to the residence and subsequently finding
heroin in the Ford Focus. Law enforcement’s surveillance of the Toyota Highlander to and from
the residence to what they confirmed through the stop of the driver of the Focus was a drug
transaction creates the nexus to the residence. See Sanders, 106 F.4th at 463 (“Evidence that one
leaves a ‘residence, engage[s] in a drug transaction, and then return[s] into the residence’ ‘plainly
demonstrate[s] a sufficient nexus’ with the location.” (citations omitted)); see also United States
v. Florence, No. 24-3729, 2025 WL 2539022, at *2 n.1 & *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 4, 2025) (noting that
“the officers’ observation of [the defendant] leaving his residence, completing a single drug
transaction, and returning to a residence was enough for the Sanders court to find probable cause
to search that residence” (citing Sanders, 106 F.4th at 463)). And, as discussed at length in the
8 	The undersigned previously found that the affiant’s failure to identify either Defendant
Walker or Kenneth Roberts as the persons who engaged in the drug transactions on February 28
and March 7, 2023, is not a material omission because the affidavit provides a nexus between the
residence and evidence of drug trafficking without this information [Doc. 66 pp. 17–18].
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 23 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

24
prior Report and Recommendation, the March 7 transaction is not the only link between the
residence and drug trafficking [See Doc. 66 pp. 6–12].
Defendants also argue that the absence of the female’s information on George, C, and that
she identified her supplier from a single photograph are material omissions. Omissions, too, can
form the basis for a Franks challenge, but “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.” United States v. Adkins, 107 F.3d 1213, 1217 (6th Cir.
1997) (citation omitted). This is because an affidavit need not include all facts gathered over the
course of an investigation. Id. Thus, “except in the very rare case where the defendant makes a
strong preliminary showing that the affiant with an intention to mislead excluded critical
information from the affidavit, and the omission is critical to the finding of probable cause, Franks
is inapplicable to the omission of disputed facts.” Mays v. City of Dayton, 134 F.3d 809, 816
(6th Cir. 1998). But the omitted information on C, George, and the female’s identification of
George with a photograph of Kenneth Roberts is not material to probable cause because it would
only strengthen probable cause if included. See Adkins, 107 F.3d at 1217 (“If the defendant does
succeed in making a preliminary showing that the government affiant engaged in ‘deliberate
falsehood’ or ‘reckless disregard for the truth’ in omitting information from the affidavit, the court
must then consider the affidavit including the omitted portions and determine whether probable
cause still exists.” (citation omitted)).
B. 	Admission of Heroin in Vehicle
The affidavit states that as law enforcement interviewed the female driver of the Ford
Focus, a drug detection dog arrived on the scene [Doc. 31-1 p. 5]. “Before the K-9’s arrival, the
female did admit to Heroin being in the vehicle” [Id.]. Defendants argue this statement is false
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 24 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

25
because Detective Holmes’s body camera video shows this admission occurred after the dog alert
not before. Both Detective Neely and the Government concede that the affidavit’s information on
the timing of this admission—that it occurred before the dog alert—is false. Even so, Defendants
fail to show that Detective Neely intentionally or recklessly made this statement or that the timing
of the admission is material to probable cause.
Detective Neely testified that when he arrived on the scene, Detective Holmes was already
speaking with the female and, thus, Detective Neely hung back and did not interrupt their
conversation. Detective Neely also testified that he based the information in the affidavit on when
the female admitted the vehicle contained heroin on information from other officers. The Court
has no evidence that Detective Neely stated the admission occurred before the dog alert to mislead
the issuing judge.
Additionally, even though false, the timing of the female’s admission is not material to
probable cause. The affidavit relates that following the dog alert, officers searched the car and
found “a baggie that contained .5 grams of a tan substance believed to be Heroin” [Doc. 36-1
p. 5]. The preceding statement that prior to the drug dog’s arrival, the female admitted heroin was
in the vehicle could be omitted with no impact on probable cause.
C. 	Prepping Narcotics on Lap and on Cell Phone9
After describing the hand-to-hand exchange between the driver of the Toyota Highlander
and the female driver of the Ford Focus, the affidavit relates that the Focus parked at a McDonalds
restaurant and “[i]nvestigators observed the female performing actions in her lap that are consistent
with prepping narcotics for use” [Doc. 36-1 p. 4]. After the dog alert and the search of the vehicle,
9 	The undersigned considers the third and fourth alleged false statements together because
they are similar.
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 25 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

26
officers found a baggie of suspected heroin in the car and “[i]nvestigators also found that the
female was preparing lines of Heroin on her phone screen for snorting” [Id. at 5].
Defendants fail to show by a preponderance of the evidence that these statements are false.
Detective Holmes’s body camera video shows that the female was bent over and facing away from
him as he approached the Ford Focus. The female later tells Detective Holmes that she was about
to snort drugs in the parking lot, and Detective Holmes says that is what he thought she was doing
based on her movements. Finally, another officer on the scene later tells Detective Holmes to be
careful when handling the female’s cell phone because it has drug residue on the surface. This
evidence preponderates against a finding that the two statements are false.
Moreover, even if the female was preparing heroin for snorting on her phone while it was
on the passenger seat rather than in her lap, such is not material to probable cause. The affiant
states that officers witnessed an individual drive from the residence, conduct a suspected drug
transaction with the female, and immediately return to the residence. And he relates that law
enforcement seized a baggie of suspected heroin from the car of the female involved in the
transaction. The affiant states that the female identified an individual linked to the residence as her
heroin supplier. Hence, the information regarding the March 7, 2023 drug transaction carries the
same import without either of the statements relating to the female’s attempted use of the drugs as
law enforcement approached her vehicle.
D. 	Rental Car Records
At the September 17 hearing, Defendant Price introduced two sets of rental car records, a
spreadsheet created by Avis documenting rentals by both Kenneth Roberts and Defendant Walker
[Exh. 3] and records produced by Avis pursuant to a subpoena for rental records between
February 1 and March 3, 2023, related to the rentals of three vehicles [Exh. 4]. Defendant argued
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 26 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

27
that these records show the affidavit’s information that Defendant Walker rented vehicles spotted
at the residence is false, because the spreadsheet was created after the affidavit and the subpoenaed
records only mention Kenneth Roberts as renting vehicles. Defendant argued that Detective Neely
phrased the information in the affidavit to make it stronger that it was to get the search warrant.
The undersigned continues to find that “only the information that Defendant Walker’s
vehicle rentals occurred in Knoxville is false” [Doc. 66 p. 16]. Although the subpoenaed documents
[Exh. 4] only discuss Kenneth Walker renting vehicles, Detective Neely testified that he obtained
additional information on the rentals from Avis by telephone. Defense counsel dismisses this
testimony because the affidavit says the information is from subpoenaed records. But the fact that
Defendant Walker rented vehicles in January and February 2023, including the Toyota Highlander
involved in the March 7, 2023, transaction is corroborated by the spreadsheet prepared by Avis
[Exh. 3; Doc. 66 p. 15 (“[T]he affidavit contains the accurate make, model, and license plate
number of the Toyota Highlander rented by Defendant Walker in Michigan and returned in
Knoxville[.]”). The undersigned also continues to find “that Defendant Walker rented vehicles
from the Avis in Michigan, rather than the Avis in Knoxville, has little, if any, bearing upon
probable cause given that rental vehicles were constantly at the residence and Defendant Walker
rented some of them” [Doc. 66 p. 16].
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, the undersigned finds that:
1. 	the affidavit’s statement that the female driver of the Ford Focus
admitted that she purchased heroin from Kenneth Roberts is not
false, and the identity of the driver of the Toyota Highlander is not
material to probable cause;
2. 	the statement that the female driver admitted her car contained
heroin before the K-9 alert is false but only as to the timing of the
admission, which occurred after, not before the dog alert, and this
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 27 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>

28
false statement of the timing of the admission is not material to
probable cause;
3. 	the affidavit’s statements that officers observed the female driver
preparing to use drugs as they approached her vehicle are not false,
nor are they material to probable cause;
4. 	the affidavit’s statement that Defendant Walker rented vehicles from
Avis in Knoxville is false only as to the location at which he rented
vehicles and the location of rental is not material to probable cause;
and
5. 	omitting both the timing of the female’s admission that her car
contained heroin and the location from which Defendant Walker
rented vehicles does not affect probable cause.
The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS10 that the District Judge again DENY Defendant’s
motions to suppress evidence [Docs. 36 & 52].
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Jill E. McCook
United States Magistrate Judge
10 	Any objections to this report and recommendation must be served and filed within fourteen
(14) days after service of a copy of this recommended disposition on the objecting party.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2) (as amended). Failure to file objections within the time specified waives
the right to review by the District Court. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2); see United States v. Branch,
537 F.3d 582, 587 (6th. Cir. 2008); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (providing
that failure to file objections in compliance with the required time period waives the right to appeal
the District Court’s order). The District Court need not provide de novo review where objections
to this report and recommendation are frivolous, conclusive, or general. Mira v. Marshall,
806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). Only specific objections are reserved for appellate review. Smith
v. Detroit Fed. of Tchrs, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).
Case 3:23-cr-00035-TAV-JEM Document 150 Filed 12/17/25 Page 28 of 28
PageID #: <pageID>