Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
United States of America v. Devin Long
Date: 10-24-2025
Case Number: 23-CR-284
Judge: Patricia A. Gaughan
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cuyaghoa County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Cleveland
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Cleveland Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory
Description:
Cleveland, Ohio, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with drug possession and firearm felonies.
As they surveilled Devin Long, officers observed him engage in several suspected drug transactions. Based on these discoveries, a magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Long's house for evidence related to drug trafficking. The search turned up a host of illegal firearms and drugs.
Long later moved to suppress the fruits of the search. After the district court rebuffed that effort, Long pleaded guilty to two federal drug charges and two federal firearms charges.
* * *
he Fourth Amendment requires "probable cause†for "Warrants [to] issue.†U.S.
CONST. amend. IV. Violations of the Amendment's probable cause requirement can result in
evidence being suppressed. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398 (1914). In examining
a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the court's factual findings for clear
error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Simmons, 129 F.4th 382, 386 (6th Cir.
2025) (citing United States v. Taylor, 121 F.4th 590, 594 (6th Cir. 2024)). But in so doing, we
are cognizant that "[t]he probable cause determination takes place on the front lines†of our
judicial system, and, accordingly, we, along with the district court, must afford "great deferenceâ€
to the issuing judge's decision. United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2024) (en
banc) (quoting United States v. Christian, 925 F.3d 305, 311 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc)).
Accordingly, when it comes to an issuing judge's determination that probable cause existed to
justify a warrant, our focus is on whether the judge either acted arbitrarily in issuing the warrant
or instead had a "substantial basis†for his probable cause conclusion. Id. We also bear in mind
that probable cause lacks a precise mathematical formulation. See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S.
366, 371 (2003) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235 (1983)). As a result, probable cause
is a product of "the totality of the circumstances,†id., and depends in part on whether "there is a
fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,†Gates,
462 U.S. at 238. We refer to this latter notion as the "'nexus' between the place to be searched
and the evidence sought.†United States v. Sheckles, 996 F.3d 330, 340 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing
United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc)).
With these principl
As they surveilled Devin Long, officers observed him engage in several suspected drug transactions. Based on these discoveries, a magistrate judge issued a warrant to search Long's house for evidence related to drug trafficking. The search turned up a host of illegal firearms and drugs.
Long later moved to suppress the fruits of the search. After the district court rebuffed that effort, Long pleaded guilty to two federal drug charges and two federal firearms charges.
* * *
he Fourth Amendment requires "probable cause†for "Warrants [to] issue.†U.S.
CONST. amend. IV. Violations of the Amendment's probable cause requirement can result in
evidence being suppressed. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398 (1914). In examining
a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the court's factual findings for clear
error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Simmons, 129 F.4th 382, 386 (6th Cir.
2025) (citing United States v. Taylor, 121 F.4th 590, 594 (6th Cir. 2024)). But in so doing, we
are cognizant that "[t]he probable cause determination takes place on the front lines†of our
judicial system, and, accordingly, we, along with the district court, must afford "great deferenceâ€
to the issuing judge's decision. United States v. Sanders, 106 F.4th 455, 461 (6th Cir. 2024) (en
banc) (quoting United States v. Christian, 925 F.3d 305, 311 (6th Cir. 2019) (en banc)).
Accordingly, when it comes to an issuing judge's determination that probable cause existed to
justify a warrant, our focus is on whether the judge either acted arbitrarily in issuing the warrant
or instead had a "substantial basis†for his probable cause conclusion. Id. We also bear in mind
that probable cause lacks a precise mathematical formulation. See Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S.
366, 371 (2003) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235 (1983)). As a result, probable cause
is a product of "the totality of the circumstances,†id., and depends in part on whether "there is a
fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,†Gates,
462 U.S. at 238. We refer to this latter notion as the "'nexus' between the place to be searched
and the evidence sought.†United States v. Sheckles, 996 F.3d 330, 340 (6th Cir. 2021) (citing
United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc)).
With these principl
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of United States of America v. Devin Long?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard United States of America v. Devin Long?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Cuyaghoa County), OH. The presiding judge was Patricia A. Gaughan.
Who were the attorneys in United States of America v. Devin Long?
Plaintiff's attorney: United States District Attorney’s Office in Cleveland. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Cleveland Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory.
When was United States of America v. Devin Long decided?
This case was decided on October 24, 2025.