Relying on Sanders, decided June 28, the court concludes that a drug dealer’s home along with the slightest facts provides a good faith basis for searching with a warrant. United States v. Neal, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15997 (6th Cir. July 1, 2024) (per curiam):
Did the affidavit here establish a “minimally sufficient nexus” between the items sought (marijuana, drug paraphernalia, drug ledgers, drug proceeds, and electronic storage devices) and the place to searched (873 Paradise Drive)? The district court believed it did, a conclusion we review de novo. See United States v. Frazier, 423 F.3d 526, 533 (6th Cir. 2005). And, on balance, we agree with the district court. The affidavit does more [*8] than make a naked guess that contraband might be found at the Paradise Drive residence. In particular, it fairly establishes two facts. First, that Neal was recently dealing large amounts of drugs—as evidenced by a tip from a trustworthy confidential informant and buttressed by a recent controlled buy from Neal. Second, that Neal resided at 873 Paradise Drive—based on police database searches, the fact that Neal’s Mercedes was registered to that address, and surveillance showing Neal using a key to enter and exit the residence day and night.
As our en banc Court recently recognized, confirmation of those two facts, known drug dealer status and the dealer’s residence, in some instances, can provide circumstantial evidence establishing probable cause to search the residence for drug trafficking evidence. See Sanders, 2024 WL 3218723, at 6 (surveying the holdings of every sister circuit to consider the issue). After all, decades of police work, not to mention common sense, has shown that drug dealers, by the nature of their work, often secure evidence of their crimes in their homes, creating a fair probability that evidence will be found there. Id. Yet this inference does not always carry the day. We have instead cabined cases in which the so-called known drug dealer inference can establish probable cause to those in which the dealer is engaged in ‘”continual and ongoing operations’ typically involving large amounts of drugs.” See United States v. Sheckles, 996 F.3d 330, 342 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. McCoy, 905 F.3d 409, 418 (6th Cir. 2018)). Conversely, isolated drug dealing or stale evidence of drug dealing does not suffice to establish a fair probability that drug trafficking evidence will be found in the home of the suspect. See Sanders, 2024 WL 3218723, at *7. The resolution of who is a “known drug dealer” engaged in “continual and ongoing operations” or what sufficient evidence of residency is, therefore, necessarily a “fact-specific” inquiry. Sheckles, 996 F.3d at 342.
