N.D.Cal.: Mere fact of possession of drugs is not nexus to defendant’s home

The mere fact a defendant had drugs on him alone is no nexus to search the defendant’s house under a search warrant. Thus, the warrant was facially invalid. United States v. Garcia, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94838 (N.D. Cal. August 24, 2011):

In effect, the government is looking for a bright-line rule that the police have probable cause to search the house of any person found with any amount of illegal drugs anywhere. This would be a significant extension of the case law, taking it beyond the bounds of what is permitted by the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit has held that “probable cause that a resident of the location has committed a crime is in itself insufficient to satisfy” the requirement that evidence probably will be found at the locations to be searched. See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1254 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Gil, 58 F.3d 1414, 1418 (9th Cir. 1995). Drug dealing and drug using are categorically different crimes. To extend the exception in Fannin and Angulo-Lopez is to eviscerate the rule stated in Fernandez and Gil. See United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir. 1970) (explaining that if mere probable cause to arrest a suspect also established probable cause to search the suspect’s home, there would be no reason to distinguish search warrants from arrest warrants). The search warrant in this case was facially invalid.

. . .

The Court has discovered no case in the country that has upheld a search warrant on facts like those in this case. In fact, a number of cases from both federal and state courts, all applying federal constitutional law, have concluded that such warrants are invalid, including cases from two state appellate courts in this circuit. …

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.