“In similar situations to the second transaction, federal courts have upheld the validity of the warrant to search a drug dealer’s premises based on the ‘common sense’ inference that drugs would be found in the home, essentially finding that evidence of the defendant leaving the house, directly proceeding to the site of the drug buy, and then immediately returning to the same house demonstrates that the house was essentially used as the defendant’s base of operations. [citations omitted] Harris has not discussed nor given any reasons to distinguish that line of authority, especially as it pertains to the second controlled buy. Harris’s avoidance of discussing the totality of the case authority surrounding the Fourth Amendment and controlled-buy transactions limits our review.” State v. Harris, 2024-Ohio-5807 (8th Dist. Dec. 12, 2024).*

“There are three recognized ways a plaintiff can show that a law is clearly established. … First, by pointing to a case with materially similar facts decided by the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, or the highest court of the relevant state. … Second, by showing ‘a broader, clearly established principle should control the novel facts in this situation.’ … This principle must be ‘specific enough to give the officers notice of the clearly established right.’ … Finally, ‘the plaintiff can show that the conduct at issue so obviously violated the Constitution that prior case law is unnecessary.’” Plaintiff fails to show a constitutional violation or that it was clearly established. Metz v. Bridges, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 31566 (11th Cir. Dec. 12, 2024).*