M.D.Pa.: Nexus to def’s apt shown by physical description not necessarily apt no.

There was sufficient connection to defendant’s alleged drug deals and his residence to support the search warrant. “While law enforcement officials could not determine at that time which of the residential units Jones entered, they were subsequently able to make the determination that Jones occupied the second unit from the left when he was observed leaving that door immediately prior to the February 3, 2016 controlled buy. These facts provided sufficient support to show both that Jones resided at the unit second from the left at 163 Charles Street and that there was a fair probability that contraband would be found there.” United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209316 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 12, 2018).

Defendant’s car was lawfully searched and inventoried. The searches of his laptops in the car occurred with a second warrant which was valid. United States v. Canfield, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35055 (2d Cir. Dec. 13, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Computer searches, Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.