The government adequately showed nexus to search defendant’s house because it showed probable cause to believe he was an active drug dealer that likely was keeping his stash at home. United States v. Rosario, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 13, 2018):
The Third Circuit has articulated a test for the exact circumstances described here. When the crime under investigation is drug distribution, an issuing judge may infer that a suspected drug dealer is storing evidence of his drug crimes in his residence if three preliminary premises are supported by evidence: (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 activities. Stearn, 597 F.3d at 559. That third factor essentially re-phrases and narrows the “nexus” inquiry into the question, what type of evidence may allow the inference that the home contains contraband?
The mere fact that a suspect is thought to be a drug dealer by authorities is insufficient to support the inference that contraband may be found in the suspect’s home. Id. (citing Burton, 288 F.3d at 104). Instead, the magistrate may apply commonsense and look to see if circumstances support the inference. The Third Circuit has devised a non-exhaustive list of factors, the existence of which help to establish the required nexus between a suspect’s drug-dealing activities and his home. Id. at 559. These factors include: (1) evidence of large-scale drug dealing operations; (2) probable cause to arrest the suspect on drug-related charges; (3) the proximity of the suspect’s residence to the location of criminal activity; and (4) the conclusions of experienced officers regarding