United States of America v. Tommy Lamont Kirtdoll

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 24a0106p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TOMMY LAMONT KIRTDOLL,
Defendant-Appellant.
┐
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
┘
No. 23-1585
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:22-cr-00064-1—Jane M. Beckering, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: May 8, 2024
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; WHITE and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.
_________________
COUNSEL
ON BRIEF: LaRissa D. Hollingsworth, DREW, COOPER & ANDING, P.C., Grand Rapids,
Michigan, for Appellant. Erin K. Lane, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, for Appellee.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Police searched Tommy Kirtdoll’s house with a warrant that
was largely accurate. Nonetheless, Kirtdoll argues the warrant’s few mistakes rendered the
search unconstitutional. The district court disagreed, and so do we.
>

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 23-1585 United States v. Kirtdoll Page 2
I.
In southwest Michigan, detectives on a multijurisdictional task force were investigating
Tommy Kirtdoll. They believed he was leading a drug-trafficking organization. While an
undercover detective facilitated drug deals with Kirtdoll and his girlfriend, other task force
members followed the pair as they traveled to and from the deals.
After each sale, Kirtdoll or his girlfriend returned to the same house. Once the task force
had witnessed several deals, the undercover detective sought a search warrant for that house.
The warrant application contained a detailed physical and geographic description. It explained
that the house was the first one on the north side of Lizzi Street—a light blue, single-story home
with white trim, bordering Carberry Road to the west. The front door faced south, and the
driveway extended in the same direction toward Lizzi Street. A red star decorated the house’s
west side. The detective also explained that the house was “commonly referred to as 893
Carberry Road,” and he included the house’s tax identification number. R. 38-1, Pg. ID 75.
Finally, the application noted the property owner’s name was Ruthie Cross.
A Michigan judge authorized the warrant. When officers executed it, they found drugs
and distribution equipment. Based on that evidence, a federal grand jury indicted Kirtdoll on
multiple drug offenses relating to methamphetamine, cocaine, and cocaine base.
Kirtdoll moved to suppress the evidence, citing three errors in the warrant. First,
Kirtdoll’s address was not 893 Carberry Road. That address belonged to a house adjacent to
Kirtdoll’s. Second, the tax identification number in the warrant transposed two digits. That
mistaken number corresponded to the actual 893 Carberry Road. And third, Ruthie Cross owned
the property at 893 Carberry Road, not Kirtdoll’s house. In Kirtdoll’s view, those mistakes
created an unreasonably high likelihood that 893 Carberry would be searched instead of his own
property. Thus, he argued, the warrant lacked particularity. See U.S. Const. amend. IV.
The district court denied Kirtdoll’s motion. It held that the warrant’s other accurate
descriptors were particular enough to satisfy the Fourth Amendment. Kirtdoll then pled guilty,
reserving the right to appeal the district court’s denial.

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 23-1585 United States v. Kirtdoll Page 3
II.
We review the warrant’s particularity de novo. United States v. Gahagan, 865 F.2d
1490, 1496 (6th Cir. 1989).
The Fourth Amendment requires search warrants to “particularly describ[e] the place to
be searched.” U.S. Const. amend. IV. That means they need enough detail for the executing
officer to “ascertain and identify the place intended” with “reasonable effort.” Steele v. United
States, 267 U.S. 498, 503 (1925). This requirement doesn’t mandate perfection. See United
States v. Wagoner, 836 F. App’x 374, 378–79 (6th Cir. 2020); Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551,
558 (2004). Instead, we ask whether the warrant was so flawed that it created a “reasonable
probability” officers would search the wrong premises. See United States v. Abdalla, 972 F.3d
838, 846–47 (6th Cir. 2020) (stating that the mere possibility of a mistaken search doesn’t violate
the Fourth Amendment). That will almost never be the case when the warrant contains some
information that “indisputably applie[s]” only to the target premises, even if “many descriptors in
the warrant” are inaccurate.* Wagoner, 836 F. App’x at 379.
A.
Kirtdoll argues that the warrant’s incorrect address, tax number, and ownership
information rendered it insufficiently particular. His challenge fails. The warrant sufficed
because it contained three descriptors that indisputably applied only to Kirtdoll’s house and
clearly identified it as the premises to be searched.
First, the warrant unambiguously described the house’s geographic location. It explained
that the house was “the first structure on the north side of Lizzi Street” and was on the “east side
*Ordinarily, we limit our review of a warrant’s constitutionality to its four corners. See, e.g., United States
v. Lewis, 81 F.4th 640, 646 (6th Cir. 2023). But our particularity cases routinely consider a warrant’s context. See,
e.g., Abdalla, 972 F.3d at 846–47 (highlighting the officer’s role as both executing officer and affiant); Wagoner,
836 F. App’x at 379 (contrasting the warrant’s description of target property with “other structures on the property”
to show particularity); United States v. Bucio-Cabrales, 635 F. App’x 324, 332 (6th Cir. 2016) (explaining why the
target apartment was “readily distinguishable” from incorrect property listed in the warrant). That’s for good
reason. The particularity inquiry focuses on the executing officer’s perspective, asking whether the officer could
accurately identify the target property with the information he had. It’s often difficult to answer that question
without considering context. For example, a warrant for a blue house would be crystal clear in a neighborhood of
red apartments but insolubly ambiguous in a neighborhood of blue houses.

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 23-1585 United States v. Kirtdoll Page 4
of Carberry Road.” R. 38-1, Pg. ID 75. The warrant also noted that Kirtdoll’s front door faced
south, and his driveway ran the same direction from the house to Lizzi Street. As Kirtdoll
himself pointed out, that description couldn’t have applied to 893 Carberry. That’s because 893
Carberry “does not have a driveway accessible off Lizzi[] Street.” R. 38, Pg. ID 70. Thus, the
warrant contained “detailed directions” to Kirtdoll’s house that couldn’t have led officers
anywhere else. See Abdalla, 972 F.3d at 846–47.
Second, the warrant gave a detailed description of Kirtdoll’s house. It described the
house as a “one-story, single-family dwelling” painted light blue with white trim. R. 38-1, Pg.
ID 75. We’ve repeatedly pointed to layout and color when upholding otherwise faulty search
warrants. See, e.g., Abdalla, 972 F.3d at 846 (“white double wide trailer with a green front porch
and a black shingle roof”); United States v. Pelayo-Landero, 285 F.3d 491, 497 (6th Cir. 2002)
(“[T]he warrant describes the particular trailer by color, by a certain exterior trim, and by a
wooden deck.”); Bucio-Cabrales, 635 F. App’x at 332–33 (“[s]ingle-family, two-story residence
with tan brick and tan siding”). As in those cases, the warrant’s inclusion of layout and color
gave officers on the ground a clear picture of the target house. That’s especially true here, as the
only incorrect house Kirtdoll thinks officers could’ve searched—893 Carberry—is white, not
blue. Thus, the warrant’s description of Kirtdoll’s house rendered the likelihood that officers
would mistakenly search 893 Carberry “practically nil.” Abdalla, 972 F.3d at 846.
Finally, the warrant included a unique, unmistakable identifier. It stated that Kirtdoll’s
house had a red star affixed to its west side. Unique identifiers like decorations are especially
informative; geographic directions can be unclear, and multiple houses in a neighborhood might
look similar. Cf. United States v. Durk, 149 F.3d 464, 466 (6th Cir. 1998). But a unique
decoration or lawn feature sets otherwise similar houses apart. That’s why, for example, we
upheld the warrant in Durk. There, the warrant both misstated the target’s address and gave the
wrong geographic location. See id. at 465–66. The warrant did describe the house as a “single
family red brick ranch home,” but “brick, ranch style homes” were “common” in the
neighborhood. Id. Despite those inaccuracies and ambiguities—far more severe than the ones
here—the property’s unique metal storage shed left executing officers no doubt about which
property to search. Id. at 466; see also Abdalla, 972 F.3d at 846 (explaining that a “unique sign”

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 23-1585 United States v. Kirtdoll Page 5
helped distinguish the target property). Just so here. The red star identified Kirtdoll’s house
with pinpoint precision.
The warrant for Kirtdoll’s house was amply specific to clear the Fourth Amendment’s
particularity hurdle. Accordingly, the district court properly denied Kirtdoll’s motion to
suppress.
B.
Kirtdoll’s only counterargument relies on Knott v. Sullivan. 418 F.3d 561 (6th Cir.
2005). There, we held that a search warrant lacked particularity when “virtually every
descriptor” of the vehicle to be searched was inaccurate. Id. at 569. Far from a slight error like
“the mere transposition of digits,” the make, model, vehicle identification number, and license
plate number were all wrong. Id. at 569–70. Indeed, the warrant’s only correct information was
the car’s general location in a sheriff’s office’s garage. But even that information was flawed; it
could have easily referred to another vehicle owned by a member of the defendant’s family. Id.
Kirtdoll argues that the warrant here is just as flawed as the one in Knott.
Not so. The numerous descriptors accurately identifying Kirtdoll’s house—and only his
house—stand in stark contrast to the circumstances in Knott. There, the warrant was devoid of
any accurate information beyond the target’s general location in a garage—hardly a limiting
descriptor. What’s more, the warrant in Knott could have been referring to either of two vehicles
belonging to the family under investigation. So not only did the warrant lack detail, but the
information it did include created an unreasonable likelihood the wrong car would be searched.
Here, by contrast—given the accurate, detailed appearance and location descriptors the warrant
included—the inaccurate tax identification number and owner were unlikely to lead executing
officers astray. Thus, Kirtdoll finds no support in Knott.
* * *
We affirm.

-- 5 of 5 --