Three controlled buys three days in a row was probable cause for a warrant for defendant\u2019s house. State v. White, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 95 (Feb. 27, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, a review of the affidavit demonstrates that it does contain specific factual averments, specifically that: (i) surveillance was initiated based on information of large-scale drug sales; (ii) agents saw the Defendant leave his residence and go directly to a meeting during which a hand-to-hand drug transaction occurred; (iii) the recipient of the hand-to-hand transaction admitted that she had purchased drugs from the Defendant;<\/em> and (iv) approximately 21 grams of marijuana were recovered from the recipient’s vehicle. While additional facts establishing a definitive nexus between the Defendant’s residence and his drug distribution activities certainly would have bolstered the affidavit, courts should refrain from \u2018second guess[ing] the magistrate who authorized the warrant\u2019 when looking at the affidavit through the lens of the good-faith exception. \u2026 Rather, the question is simply \u2018whether officers objectively could reasonably believe that there was\u2019 such a nexus between the drug activity and residence.\u201d And here the answer is yes. United States v. Robertson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40354 (W.D. La. Feb. 26, 2026) (emphasis added).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Three controlled buys three days in a row was probable cause for a warrant for defendant\u2019s house. State v. White, 2026 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 95 (Feb. 27, 2026).* \u201cHere, a review of the affidavit demonstrates that it does contain … Continue reading