## Facts

- Federal investigators suspected Rudolph Keszthelyi of cocaine trafficking based on undercover activity and confidential informants.
- Officers obtained an arrest warrant for Keszthelyi and a search warrant for his residence.
- On October 8, 1999, officers arrested Keszthelyi in his vehicle and found cocaine in the car.
- That day, officers executed the residential search warrant and found firearms, cash, a digital scale, business records, pills, and drug paraphernalia, but no cocaine in the home.
- On October 9, officers re-entered the residence without obtaining a new warrant and continued searching, discovering approximately one ounce of cocaine behind the oven.
- On October 11, officers obtained a new warrant based on additional witness information and searched again; no drugs were found.
- A grand jury ultimately charged Keszthelyi in a third superseding indictment with numerous offenses, including drug distribution, money laundering-related transactions, firearms offenses, and obstruction.
- Keszthelyi pleaded guilty to one count of engaging in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property (18 U.S.C. § 1957) and one count of distributing cocaine hydrochloride (21 U.S.C. § 841); remaining counts were dismissed.
- The plea agreement did not stipulate drug quantity and preserved Keszthelyi’s right to appeal denial of his suppression motion.
- The district court denied suppression, calculated drug quantity in part from unexplained bank deposits over several years, applied a two-level firearm enhancement, and sentenced Keszthelyi.
- Keszthelyi appealed the suppression rulings and sentencing determinations.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged material omissions in the search-warrant affidavit required invalidation of the warrant under Franks principles and suppression of evidence.
2. Whether the October 9 warrantless re-entry and continued search of the home was an unconstitutional second search requiring suppression of the cocaine found behind the oven.
3. Whether the district court clearly erred by estimating drug quantity for sentencing by extrapolating from unexplained bank deposits.
4. Whether the district court properly applied a two-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for possession of firearms in connection with drug offenses.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full.
- The court held the initial residential search warrant was supported by probable cause and was not invalidated by the asserted omissions.
- The court held the October 9 re-entry was a permissible continuation of the execution of the original warrant and did not require a new warrant.
- The court held the drug-quantity approximation based on financial records and reasonable inferences was not clearly erroneous.
- The court held the two-level firearm enhancement was properly applied given the presence of firearms with evidence of drug trafficking and the defendant’s failure to show a clearly improbable connection.

## Legal Principles

- A Franks challenge based on omissions requires proof that the omission was intentional or reckless and that inclusion of the omitted facts would defeat probable cause.
- Probable cause for a search warrant is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances, with deference to the issuing magistrate’s determination.
- A prompt, purpose-consistent re-entry may be treated as a continuation of an initial warrant execution rather than a separate search requiring a new warrant.
- Sentencing courts may approximate drug quantity using financial records and reasonable inferences supported by a preponderance of the evidence; appellate review of such factual findings is for clear error.
- A firearm enhancement applies when weapons are possessed in connection with drug activity; once proximity and connection are supported, the defendant must show it is clearly improbable the weapon was connected to the offense.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld the denial of suppression because the warrant remained supported by probable cause despite alleged omissions and the next-day re-entry was treated as continued warrant execution, and it affirmed the sentence because the drug-quantity estimate based on unexplained deposits and the firearm enhancement were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.


United States v. Keszthelyi, 308 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2002)