TN: Nexus for house in a SW shown by defendant leaving house to go directly to a drug deal

The affidavit for the search warrant adequately showed facts connecting defendant’s premises to the drug dealing to support a search warrant for the house. He left the house to go directly to a drug deal. State v. Saine, 297 S.W.3d 199 (Tenn. 2009), revg in part State v. Saine, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 289 (April 4, 2008):

The affidavit explained that the officers followed Mr. Saine directly from his residence to the prearranged location where recording and transmitting equipment enabled the officers to observe Mr. Saine selling cocaine to the informant. The officers then followed Mr. Saine directly back to his residence. From these facts, the magistrate could reasonably infer that the supply of drugs was located in Mr. Saine’s residence. See id. § 3.7(d) n.165 (citing state and federal cases with similar holdings from various jurisdictions); cf. Smith, 868 S.W.2d at 572 (finding that the affidavit established probable cause to search the defendant’s residence where the objects sought were of a type kept at one’s residence and the defendant admitted to returning directly home after being with the victims on the night of the murder).

This inference was further supported by Detective Roberts’s experience that drug dealers ordinarily keep their drugs, the proceeds of drug sales, and financial records related to their business in their residences. See United States v. Miggins, 302 F.3d 384, 393-94 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing a long line of cases); compare United States v. Kenny, 505 F.3d 458, 461-62 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that the affidavit showed a nexus when the defendant was arrested for manufacturing methamphetamine at another location, which “is only a step away from dealing”), with United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518, 526 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that the affidavit did not show a nexus when the defendant was arrested on his porch with cocaine in his pocket).

The smell of marijuana coming from defendant’s car was justification for its search. The trial court reached the right result but for the wrong reason. Perry v. Commonwealth, 55 Va. App. 122, 684 S.E.2d 227 (2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.