TN: Nexus to def’s house more easily shown when object of search is jewelry from a store robbery

Defendants were accused of a jewelry store heist. The small nature of the items involved makes it more likely they’d be kept at home until disposed of, and that shows nexus. As to standing, defendants without it don’t get to attach the processes of the search warrant, too. State v. Tabb, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 913 (Nov. 13, 2015):

In denying the Defendants’ motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search of the blue Ford Expedition, the trial court found that the Defendants failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle and thus lacked standing to challenge the search. On appeal, the Defendants do not challenge this finding nor assert that they have standing with regard to the vehicle; instead, they assert that a defendant need not establish standing in order to challenge the facial validity of a search warrant because ‘whether or not a defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a place to be searched, they are still entitled to due process of law at all stages of the proceedings against them.’ While novel, we are unpersuaded by this argument.

. . .

As noted, the type of crime, nature of the items, and the normal inferences where a criminal would hide the evidence may establish a sufficient nexus to satisfy probable cause. Smith, 868 S.W.2d at 572. Here, the trial court reasoned that given the time period between the commission of the burglary and the small size of the items of jewelry, it was reasonable to infer that the items would be stored in the Defendants’ residences at that time. We agree with the trial court and conclude that the affidavit provided a substantial basis for finding probable case.