M.D.Pa.: It is a reasonable inference that drug dealers keep their stashes at home

It is a reasonable inference that drug dealers keep their stashes at home, and that supports a search warrant of their home. United States v. Kelly, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117523 (M.D.Pa. September 3, 2015):

As the Government points out, “[w]hen the crime under investigation is drug distribution, a magistrate may find probable cause to search the target’s residence even without direct evidence that contraband will be found there.” United States v. Stearn, 597 F.3d 540, 558 (3d Cir. 2010). “[I]t is a reasonable inference to conclude that drug dealers often store evidence of drug crimes in their residences.” Id. (quoting United States v. Burton, 288 F.3d 91, 104 (3d Cir. 2002)). In order for that inference to apply, there must be evidence supporting “three preliminary premises: (1) that the person suspected of drug dealing is actually a drug dealer; (2) that the place to be searched is possessed by, or the domicile of, the dealer; and (3) that the home contains contraband linking it to the dealer’s drug activities.” Burton, 288 F.3d at 104.

In the present case, the Court finds that probable cause is evident from Agent Endy’s affidavit. The three Burton preliminary premises are supported by the facts Agent Endy submitted to Magistrate Judge Carlson. First, Defendant was a previously convicted drug dealer who made controlled sales of crack cocaine as recently as sixteen days before Magistrate Judge Carlson issued the search warrant. …

Even without relying on the inference described in Stearn, the Court finds that probable cause separately existed to search Defendant’s residence. This conclusion comes from largely the same facts discussed directly above: ….