United States of America v. Fred Masters, Jr.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0039n.06
No. 14-5804
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FRED MASTERS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE
BEFORE: GIBBONS and COOK, Circuit Judges; GWIN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM. Fred Masters, Jr., following his conditional guilty plea to possession of
materials to manufacture methamphetamine, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
suppress. We affirm.
On March 3, 2012, Investigator Brent Chunn of the Tipton County Sheriff’s Office
applied for a warrant to search Sharon Hebert and her residence. In his affidavit in support of the
search warrant, Investigator Chunn asserted that there was probable cause to believe that Hebert
was in possession of “methamphetamine and/or components of a methamphetamine lab, and any
receipts or documents pertaining to the purchase of pseudoephedrine.” Investigator Chunn set
forth the following reasons for this belief:
The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Ohio, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 14-5804
United States v. Masters
- 2 -
Investigator Brent Chunn identified Sharon Hebert as purchasing a very large
amount of pseudoephedrine pills, through the use of the Tennessee
Methamphetamine Task Force website database. This database is an investigative
tool to monitor all purchases and attempted purchases of pseudoephedrine. It also
tracks any blocked purchases which means any purchases of over 9.0 grams of
pseudoephedrine within a thirty day period. Pseudoephedrine is the main
precursor to the manufacturing of methamphetamines. Sharon Hebert has
purchased pseudoephedrine pills from at least 2 different counties to include
different pharmacies in Shelby County, TN and Tipton County, TN. Through my
training and experience of locating, arresting and interviewing methamphetamine
cooks, Investigator Brent Chunn knows this to be consistent practices of a
methamphetamine cooks and/or smurfers (persons that shop for materials used to
manufacture methamphetamine). Since 03/12/2011 to this date, Sharon Hebert
has purchased @43.68 grams of pseudoephedrine pills from 2 different counties,
including Shelby County, TN and Tipton County TN.
. . . .
Sharon Hebert has been arrested for Felony Possession of Schedule II (Meth) with
Intent and Felony Possession of Schedule II. Fred Masters, JR who is Sharon
Hebert husband, also resides at the residence and has also been arrested for
Initiation of Methamphetamine, Felony Possession of Schedule II (Meth) with
Intent.
Based on Investigator Chunn’s affidavit, a chancellor issued the warrant. When
Investigator Chunn and other deputies arrived at the residence to execute the warrant, Masters
fled on foot but was later apprehended. Hebert was arrested at the scene. During their search of
the residence, the deputies found nine Sudafed tablets, a pill bottle with a white powdery
substance, coffee filters, four lithium batteries, three pipes, a glass vial with a white powdery
substance, five white tablets, a gas generator, and Coleman fuel.
A federal grand jury subsequently charged Masters with manufacturing
methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 1), maintaining a place for the
manufacture of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 (Count 2), and possessing
materials to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 843(a)(6)
(Count 3). Masters filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search. A

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 14-5804
United States v. Masters
- 3 -
magistrate judge recommended that Masters’s motion be denied. Over Masters’s objections, the
district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denied the motion. Pursuant to
a written plea agreement, Masters entered a conditional guilty plea to Count 3, reserving his right
to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The district court sentenced Masters to
120 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release.
In this timely appeal, Masters asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion to
suppress because the affidavit underlying the search warrant lacked probable cause, was
otherwise stale, and the good-faith exception did not apply. In reviewing the denial of Masters’s
motion to suppress, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal
conclusions—including whether the affidavit provided probable cause—de novo. See United
States v. Brown, 732 F.3d 569, 572 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 539 (2013).
Under the Fourth Amendment, “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” U.S.
Const. amend. IV. “To find probable cause, a judge issuing a search warrant must have a
substantial basis for thinking that there is a fair probability that evidence of a crime would be
found at the premises.” United States v. Rose, 714 F.3d 362, 366 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S.
Ct. 272 (2013). We give great deference to the issuing judge’s probable cause determination. Id.
In his affidavit, Investigator Chunn asserted that, “[s]ince 03/12/2011 to [03/03/2012],
Sharon Hebert has purchased @43.68 grams of pseudoephedrine pills from 2 different counties,
including Shelby County, TN and Tipton County TN.” While Investigator Chunn characterized
Hebert’s purchases as “a very large amount of pseudoephedrine pills,” this amount of
pseudoephedrine was well within the legal limits—less than half the amount allowed over the
course of a year under the version of the statute then in effect. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-
431(c)(2) (2012) (“A person shall not purchase products containing more than nine grams per

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 14-5804
United States v. Masters
- 4 -
thirty-day period [] of . . . pseudoephedrine base or [its] salts, isomers, or salts of isomers.”). But
“probable cause requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an
actual showing of such activity.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 244 n.13 (1983). Investigator
Chunn also stated that Hebert purchased pseudoephedrine pills from various pharmacies in at
least two different counties, which, pursuant to his experience and training, was consistent with
the practices of methamphetamine cooks and “smurfers.”
According to the affidavit, moreover, Hebert and Masters had both been arrested for
felony possession of methamphetamine with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell. Masters had
also been arrested for initiating a process to manufacture methamphetamine. See United States v.
Dyer, 580 F.3d 386, 392 (6th Cir. 2009) (“Although a defendant’s criminal history is not
dispositive, it is relevant to the probable cause inquiry.” (internal citation omitted)). Combined
with Hebert’s suspicious purchasing activity, Hebert and Masters’s prior arrests for similar
offenses raised a reasonable suspicion that the pair were engaged in drug trafficking, from which
the issuing judge could reasonably infer that Hebert and Masters used their residence to
manufacture or store either methamphetamine or materials for manufacturing methamphetamine.
See United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683, 687 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e have held that an issuing
judge may infer that drug traffickers use their homes to store drugs and otherwise further their
drug trafficking.”). Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving deference to the
issuing judge, we conclude that probable cause supported the search warrant.
Masters contends that Investigator Chunn’s affidavit lacked any temporal reference,
rendering the information stale. The affidavit did provide a temporal reference: Hebert’s
purchases were made between March 12, 2011, and March 3, 2012. “The staleness inquiry
depends on the ‘inherent nature of the crime.’” United States v. Frechette, 583 F.3d 374, 378

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 14-5804
United States v. Masters
- 5 -
(6th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Spikes, 158 F.3d 913, 923 (6th Cir. 1998)).
Manufacturing methamphetamine is a crime of a regenerating and ongoing nature. See United
States v. Redmond, 475 F. App’x 603, 608-09 (6th Cir. 2012); Spikes, 158 F.3d at 923-24.
Hebert and Masters’s arrest records indicated that their involvement in manufacturing
methamphetamine was not an isolated incident, components of a methamphetamine lab have
continuing utility, Hebert’s suspicious purchasing activity continued over the course of a year,
and the residence provided a secure operational base. Accordingly, the information contained in
the affidavit was not stale. The district court properly denied Masters’s motion to suppress.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

-- 5 of 5 --