Search & seizure; Motion to suppress; “Probable cause” for a search warrant; United States v Sanders; The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule; United States v Leon; United States v Christian; Admission of proffer statements; United States v Grogan; FRE 410(a)(4); Waiver by consenting to use of the statements if defendant offers inconsistent evidence; Waiver of Confrontation Clause challenge

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant-Walker’s motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, or in admitting his proffer statements. It also found that he waived his Confrontation Clause challenge. Thus, it affirmed his drug conspiracy-related convictions. He unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence discovered during a search of a house referred to as the Wagner Ave. residence. The court first concluded that, “considered as a whole, the warrant affidavit here cleared the probable-cause bar.” It detailed his criminal history, including that he was on federal probation for a narcotics sell/distribute charge, had three prior state narcotic convictions from 2007 through 2015, and a prior federal possession with intent to distribute cocaine charge from 2017. Taken together, his “history of narcotics trafficking and the affiant’s observations of two drug sales (one confirmed and one suspected), shortly after Walker left the Wagner Ave. residence, created probable cause to believe that a search would uncover illegal contraband.” The court rejected his assertion that the affidavit “did not do enough either to connect evidence of drug dealing to the residence or to” show that he lived there. The court found that “a ‘practical, common sense evaluation of all of the circumstances’” showed that it contained sufficient information to search the house. He left there right before the confirmed drug sale. “He drove ‘straight to’ the sale point, making no stops along the way. He returned to the house sometime afterwards. Later that day, he again left the Wagner Ave. house, got into the Jeep with a child, and was surveilled driving to the suspected drug exchange with an unknown male at” a store. He then “returned to the Wagner Ave. house. His girlfriend of six years owned both the house and the Jeep. This was sufficient to suggest that evidence of drug dealing would be found in the” house and to establish probable cause to search it. And even if probable cause had not been established, “the good-faith exception required denial of the suppression motion.” As to the use of his proffer statements, the court held that he waived his FRE 410 challenge. His attorney conceded “that the opening statement opened the door and rendered contrary statements admissible.”