TN: SW affidavit drug sales occurred “at” a house is not “in” the house; no nexus shown

The affidavit for search warrant said that sales of drugs occurred “at 115 Emory Street” not in, and the trial court correctly refused to assume nexus that it meant “in” because it could have been on the porch, in the yard, cars driving by. “Without more facts within the affidavit to tie Mr. Nightwine to the residence at 115 Emory Street, evidence of repeated sales by Mr. Nightwine cannot justify the search of the residence. The affidavit fails to establish a sufficient nexus between the criminal activity and the place to be searched. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion to suppress.” State v. Nightwine, 2013 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 1100 (December 17, 2013).

Officers walked up to defendant’s car to see if he knew anything about a shots fired call they were sent on, and they saw furtive movement down to the floorboard as they approached. They smelled burnt marijuana. “In sum, the Court is satisfied that the officers’ stop and approach towards Defendant’s car were initiated as a consensual encounter that later became non-consensual by virtue of what the officers saw and smelled.” United States v. Winston, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177299 (S.D. Mich. December 18, 2013).*

Trial court’s crediting defendant’s testimony that there was no basis for a traffic stop means it gets affirmed on appeal. State v. Liebling, 2013-Ohio-5491, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5726 (9th Dist. December 16, 2013).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.