{"id":2229,"date":"2008-08-31T16:54:54","date_gmt":"2008-07-07T05:03:16","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-07-06T15:18:17","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2229","title":{"rendered":"IN: Defendant&#8217;s substantial drug operation using his business gave PC to believe record of operation would be in his house"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Police tailed a drug mule who had already been busted on I-70 in Indiana. He had instructions to drive to Richmond, Indiana and make a call. An officer rode with him, and he made the call and was told to go to a muffler shop and park in a service bay.  When he arrived, the defendant showed up. The vehicle was taken into the service bay and money was removed while officers were listening by a planted wireless device.  Defendant was arrested. Based on the affidavit&#8217;s assertions that those involved in substantial drug movement likely would have drug records at home, the search warrant affidavit showed probable cause for a search warrant of defendant&#8217;s house. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.in.gov\/judiciary\/opinions\/pdf\/06300801bd.pdf\">Eaton v. State<\/a>, 889 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. 2008):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The defendant&#8217;s argument is that these facts fail to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant authorizing police to search his residence. We disagree. The facts presented in the affidavit and the reasonable inferences therefrom show that the defendant was involved in the receipt and unloading of a substantial quantity of illegal drugs, and that incriminating records commonly maintained by persons engaged in drug trafficking were likely to be found at the defendant&#8217;s residence. Evaluating the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the facts set forth in the affidavit established a fair probability, that is, a substantial chance, that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the defendant&#8217;s residence. We are convinced that the issuing magistrate had a &#8216;substantial basis for\u2026 conclud[ing]&#8217; that probable cause existed.&#8221; <em>Gates<\/em>, 462 U.S. at 238-39.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2229\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2229","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2229","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2229"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2229\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2229"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2229"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2229"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}