W.D.Mich.: Drug dealers commonly keep proceeds and drugs at home, and that’s nexus

It is settled in this circuit [and everywhere] that the proceeds of a controlled buy likely are at the dealer’s home. United States v. Lopez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 260022 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 12, 2026)*:

Lopez also argues that the warrant affidavit is defective because it rests on a generalized suspicion that he, as a known drug dealer, would store evidence at 324 Cedar Street NE. (See Def.’s Br. 4-7.) This argument misinterprets the Sixth Circuit’s “known drug dealer” caselaw. “Customarily, known drug dealer cases involve a search warrant affidavit indicating that a drug dealer lives at a certain location.” Sanders, 106 F.4th at 465 (citing United States v. Reed, 993 F.3d 441, 444 (6th Cir. 2021)). And “in the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live.” Id. (quoting United States v. Davidson, 36 F.2d 856, 860 (6th Cir. 1991)). But as Lopez points out, nothing in the affidavit suggests he lived at 324 Cedar Street NE. And no inferences in the warrant rest on the conclusion that Lopez resides at that address. Rather, the warrant affidavit relies upon a nexus between 324 Cedar Street NE and drug trafficking through two controlled buys with direct connections to the residence. (Warrant Aff. 4.) “Probable cause based on controlled buys … does not depend on the ‘known drug dealer’ inference.” Florence, 150 F.4th at 779. Therefore, Lopez’s contention that this case falls within the known drug dealer line of cases is off base.

The remainder of Lopez’s objections are equally unpersuasive. …

This entry was posted in Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.