CA1: Direct evidence and indirect inferences showed PC

“Lindsey argues that there was no probable cause to believe there was evidence of drug dealing on the cellphones because the affidavit offered ‘no direct evidence’ that the phones would contain evidence of any drug dealing and the ‘indirect’ evidence was not strong enough to create a fair inference that there would be evidence of drug dealing on the cellphones. We disagree. There was substantial evidence presented in the warrant application and supporting affidavit that Lindsey had been engaged in drug dealing and that he had delivered drugs in his car to various locations. The affidavit also explained that Lindsey had more than one cellphone and that it is common for drug dealers to use multiple cellphones to conceal their drug business. This was enough to support a fair inference that the cellphones would contain evidence of drug dealing.” United States v. Lindsey, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19265 (1st Cir. June 29, 2021).

Defendant didn’t have standing to challenge a search of his girlfriend’s mother’s house where he kept the evidence. Trial testimony might have changed the view on that, at least for him, but the court finds her consent and reliance on her authority over her own house enough too. People v. McMorris, 2021 NY Slip Op 04111, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4215 (1st Dept. June 29, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Probable cause, Standing. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.