{"id":18840,"date":"2015-09-15T07:20:47","date_gmt":"2015-09-15T12:20:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=18840"},"modified":"2015-09-15T07:20:47","modified_gmt":"2015-09-15T12:20:47","slug":"ca6-if-its-a-close-case-on-nexus-to-a-drug-dealers-home-the-gfe-is-good-enough-for-government-work","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=18840","title":{"rendered":"CA6: If it’s a close case on nexus to a drug dealer’s home, the GFE is good enough for government work"},"content":{"rendered":"

While the proof of nexus to defendant\u2019s house was thin, the USMJ could reasonably draw the inference that defendant\u2019s base of operations for his drug sales was his house. \u201cIt is a close question whether Agent Fitch’s affidavit sets forth a sufficient nexus between drug trafficking and Brown’s residence to support issuance of the search warrant. The affidavit contained no evidence that Brown distributed narcotics from his home, that he used the residence to store narcotics, or that any suspicious activity had taken place there. The affidavit did not suggest that a reliable confidential informant had purchased drugs there, that the police had ever conducted surveillance at Brown’s home, or that the recorded telephone conversations linked drug trafficking to Brown’s residence.\u201d And, the inference was not so deficient that the good faith exception would not apply. United States v. Brown<\/a>, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16148 (6th Cir. September 11, 2015):
\n<\/p>\n

Because the Fourth Amendment requires a search warrant to describe particularly the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized, the affidavit supporting the search warrant must demonstrate a nexus between the evidence sought and the place to be searched. United States v. Carpenter, 360 F.3d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc). If the affidavit does not present sufficient facts demonstrating why the police officer expects to find evidence in the residence rather than in some other place, a magistrate judge may not find probable cause to issue a search warrant. Id. Whether an affidavit establishes a proper nexus is a fact-intensive question resolved by examining the totality of circumstances presented. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238; Brown, 732 F.3d at 573.<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

Several of our cases recognize that a magistrate judge is entitled to draw a reasonable inference that evidence of a crime is likely to be found where known drug traffickers reside. …<\/p>\n

. . .<\/p>\n

It is a close question whether Agent Fitch’s affidavit sets forth a sufficient nexus between drug trafficking and Brown’s residence to support issuance of the search warrant. The affidavit contained no evidence that Brown distributed narcotics from his home, that he used the residence to store narcotics, or that any suspicious activity had taken place there. The affidavit did not suggest that a reliable confidential informant had purchased drugs there, that the police had ever conducted surveillance at Brown’s home, or that the recorded telephone conversations linked drug trafficking to Brown’s residence.<\/p>\n

Unlike the affidavits discussed in Frazier and McPhearson, however, Agent Fitch’s affidavit presented the magistrate judge with more than an uncorroborated suspicion that Brown was a drug dealer. Key to the issuance of this search warrant was Brown’s status as a previously-convicted drug dealer, coupled with the police investigation of Brown’s involvement in ongoing trafficking of heroin and possibly cocaine, the drug dog’s detection of narcotic odor in Brown’s 2002 Yukon that was parked at Middleton’s house on the night of Brown’s arrest, and the registration of the 2002 Yukon to Brown at the Moross Road residence. Under our cases, the magistrate judge could reasonably infer from these facts that Brown had recently used the Yukon registered to his home on Moross Road to ferry narcotics and that there was a fair probability that a search of his residence would turn up contraband or evidence of a crime.<\/p>\n

Though a close question, under these circumstances, we find that the affidavit was not based on the singular fact of Brown’s previous drug conviction but included adequate reliable evidence providing the necessary connection between ongoing drug activity and Brown’s home. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238. See also United States v. Gunter, 266 F. App’x 415, 419 (6th Cir. 2008) (“[T]his Court’s precedents establish that a nexus exists between a known drug dealer’s criminal activity and the dealer’s residence when some reliable evidence exists connecting the criminal activity with the residence. … When, however, the only evidence of a connection between illegal activity and the residence is unreliable, such as uncorroborated statements by a confidential informant, then a warrant may not issue allowing the search of the residence.”). We conclude, under the totality of the circumstances, that the affidavit was sufficient to provide probable cause to support issuance of the search warrant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

While the proof of nexus to defendant\u2019s house was thin, the USMJ could reasonably draw the inference that defendant\u2019s base of operations for his drug sales was his house. \u201cIt is a close question whether Agent Fitch’s affidavit sets forth … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,38],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-good-faith-exception","category-nexus"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18840","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18840"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18840\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18841,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18840\/revisions\/18841"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}