M.D.Pa.: Being a drug dealer by trade doesn’t mean one’s house is subject to search; a bit more required

Being a drug dealer by trade doesn’t mean one’s house is subject to search. It is, however, an inference that can be drawn along with other facts. United States v. Couvertier, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40270 (M.D. Pa. March 21, 2017):

Brown was not at the apartment prior to the second controlled buy. Detective Curtsinger saw Brown return to the apartment and remain inside for approximately five minutes before going to the meeting location to make the controlled transaction. The defendant’s status as an alleged drug dealer, standing alone, does not give rise to a fair probability that drugs will be found in his home. United States v. Frazier, 423 F.3d 526, 533 (6th Cir. 2005). See also Brown, 828 F.3d at 383-84. But see United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 975 (6th Cir. 1998) (“In the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live.”). However, courts are entitled to draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is likely to be kept, based on the nature of the crime and the type of offense. United States v. Young, 847 F.3d 328, 346 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Williams, 544 F.3d 683, 686 (6th Cir. 2008)). Further, Brown’s presence at the apartment, especially his need to return there prior to making a sale to the CI, suggests that drugs were located in the apartment. This information, along with the results of Detective Curtsinger’s surveillance, and the information provided by the informants, constitutes probable cause to support the search warrant.

Accord: United States v. Brown, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39468 (E.D. Ky. March 20, 2017).