E.D.Tenn.: Nexus shown for drug dealer’s home

With search warrants for drug dealers, nexus is almost per se shown for their home for drugs and money. United States v. Huerta, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116621 (E.D. Tenn. November 10, 2009):

“In the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live,” United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 975 (6th Cir. 1998), quoting United States v. Lamon, 930 F.2d 1183 (7th Cir. 1991). A case that originated in this court is directly on point: United States v. Gunter, 551 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2009). Gunter argued that the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant issued by this court failed to establish a nexus between his residence and the criminal activity otherwise described in the affidavit, arguing that “the affidavit does not contain any facts indicating that Gunter was dealing drugs from his residence, and that the affidavit only mentions his residence in one short paragraph ….” 551 F.3d at 481. The Court of Appeals held that it was reasonable to conclude from the affidavit that Mr. Gunter was engaged in drug trafficking, and it was therefore reasonable to infer “that evidence of the illegal activity would be found at [his] residence,” citing Gunter, supra, 551 F.3d at 481.

Accord: United States v. Huerta, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117154 (E.D. Tenn. December 3, 2009).*

Defendant’s specific argument of lack of attenuation from alleged illegal police conduct was not made in the district court, so it was waived for appeal. “While the two arguments are related, they are not the same.” United States v. Lambert, 356 Fed. Appx. 179 (10th Cir. 2009) (unpublished).*

Odor of marijuana coming from defendant’s vehicle was probable cause for a search. United States v. Curry, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116499 (N.D. Tex. December 14, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.