United States v. Johnny Barbour

── United States v. Johnny Barbour ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: June 04, 2026 Category: General NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 26a0255n.06 Case No. 25-5577 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jun 04, 2026 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN JOHNNY L. BARBOUR, ) DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Defendant-Appellant. ) ) OPINION Before: COLE, STRANCH, and BUSH, Circuit Judges. COLE, Circuit Judge. After law enforcement officers seized drugs, drug paraphernalia, firearms, ammunition, and cash during a search of Johnny Barbour’s home, a grand jury indicted Barbour on three counts of drug- and firearm-related offenses. Barbour unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search. Once the district court denied his motion, he pleaded guilty. Barbour claims the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. For the reasons below, we affirm. I. In late 2022, both the City of Tullahoma Police Department and the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department began investigating Barbour for drug-related offenses. In December, a Coffee County officer, Blake Simmons, and a Tullahoma officer, Jason Maloney, separately but contemporaneously applied for a search warrant for Barbour’s Helen Street residence. The state court judge first met with the officers from Coffee County. But upon looking at the warrant No. 25-5577, United States v. Barbour affidavit, the judge realized that the Tullahoma officers were waiting to apply for the same search warrant. The judge gathered the officers from both departments, “flipped through” both affidavits, and asked the officers to decide which search warrant he should sign. (Mot. to Suppress Hr’g Tr., R. 37, PageID 563.) After a brief discussion, the officers decided that Coffee County was best positioned to quickly execute the warrant. So, the judge signed Coffee County’s search warrant. Coffee County officers searched Barbour’s residence and seized drugs, drug paraphernalia, firearms, ammunition, and cash. They arrested Barbour, and a grand jury indicted him on charges of possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Barbour moved to suppress all evidence seized in his home, arguing that the search warrant lacked probable cause. The government opposed the motion, conceding that the affidavit may have lacked probable cause, but arguing that the officers relied on the warrant in good faith. The magistrate judge held a suppression hearing. Maloney, Simmons, and another officer from Coffee County testified, and the magistrate judge admitted into evidence both search warrant affidavits. The magistrate judge recommended the district court grant the motion, finding the search warrant lacked probable cause and the good-faith exception did not apply. The government objected, and the district court sustained the objections in