E.D.Wis.: Circumstantial evidence of drug dealing will support a SW; direct evidence not required

Circumstantial evidence of drug dealing is all that’s required for a search warrant to issue for a house. “Similarly, in United States v. Burton, 288 F.3d 91, 103 (3rd Cir. 2002), the court held that direct evidence of drug-dealing activity was not needed in order to authorize a search warrant, stating: ‘probable cause to search can be based on an accumulation of circumstantial evidence that together indicates a fair probability of the presence of contraband at the home of the arrested.’ In holding that the affidavit was sufficient, the court took cognizance of the agent’s expertise in deducing from facts known to him whether or not a particular location involved a ‘stash house’ in which drugs and large amounts of currency might be kept. Id.” United States v. Brecker, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65437 (E.D. Wis. April 6, 2015).

“In this case, the record gives no indication the police repeatedly requested defendant submit to a blood test or used undue influence to obtain defendant’s consent. While McKinney provided defendant the warning to motorist, consent to a chemical test is not coerced and is not rendered involuntary merely by a law-enforcement officer’s reading of the warning to motorist that accurately informs defendant of the consequences for refusing the test.” People v. Harris, 2015 IL App (4th) 140696, 2015 Ill. App. LEXIS 383 (May 18, 2015).*

“The lawfulness of a detention is an essential element of evading arrest or detention which is reviewed for legal sufficiency.” Vidales v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 5033 (Tex. App.–Amarillo May 15, 2015).*