N.D.Ga.: On the totality, nexus was reasonably inferred by the issuing USMJ

Nexus to defendant’s property for a search warrant was shown by GPS data and physical surveillance putting co-conspirators at his house before and after drug deals and wiretaps referring to “the office” which officers finally, and reasonably, interpreted to be the house. On the totality, nexus was reasonably inferred by the issuing USMJ. United States v. Chaidez-Ontiveros, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190105 (N.D. Ga. September 17, 2012):

In support of the opinion that the residence is utilized by Espinoza-Borjas and Defendant Parks and their associates “for the short term storage of illegal drugs and illegal drug proceeds[,]” the Affiant relied on physical and electronic surveillance, including court-authorized collection of GPS data, which placed both Defendants “frequenting the [residence] at varying times, both together and separately[,]” although neither appeared to reside there. [Id., ¶ E 12]. The Affiant outlined intercepted calls using code between Espinoza-Borjas and Defendant Parks discussing “the office,” which the Affiant interpreted based on his training, experience and involvement in the investigation. As interpreted, on April 27, 2011, at 12:50 p.m., Defendant Parks inquired of Espinoza-Borjas whether he had cocaine to sell to customers whom Defendant Parks had waiting, and Espinoza-Borjas responded that the drugs would be ready in an hour and that his workers were on the way to “the office.” When Espinoza-Borjas asked about the payment for the drugs, Defendant Parks advised that he would have to collect the money. At 1:12 p.m., agents conducted surveillance at 3310 Sequoia Avenue and observed the red and white Chevrolet Camaro parked at the residence. [Id., ¶¶ E 13, 14, 15].

Based on the totality of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, the Magistrate Judge properly relied on the Affiant’s training and experience and the Affiant’s opinion about where evidence of the drug trafficking organization under investigation may be found. See, e.g., United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289, 296-97 (3rd Cir. 2000). Additionally, the Magistrate Judge issuing the warrant was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the facts alleged in the affidavit in evaluating probable cause to which the reviewing court should accord great deference. See United States v. Alexander, 574 F.3d 484, 490 (8th Cir. 2009) (“‘Judges may draw reasonable inferences from the totality of the circumstances in determining whether probable cause exists to issue a warrant. …'”) (citation omitted); United States v. Biglow, 562 F.3d 1272, 1281 (10th Cir. 2009) (“We recognize that magistrate judges are vested with substantial discretion to draw all ‘reasonable inferences’ from the Government’s evidence.”); United States v. Wiley, 475 F.3d 908, 916 (7th Cir. 2007) (“‘… issuing judges are entitled to draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is likely to be found given the nature of the evidence and the type of offense'”) (citation omitted).

And any challenge to probable cause based on the Magistrate Judge’s reliance on the Affiant’s interpretation of seemingly innocuous words and conversations intercepted over the wire intercepts fails for the same reason. The Magistrate Judge properly relied on the Affiant’s interpretation of these conversations in determining whether there was probable cause to search the residence. …