TN: Payton permitted entry to execute arrest warrant on motel room

Officers reasonably believed defendant was in a motel room, and an arrest warrant permitted entry under Payton. The observations from that went to getting a search warrant for the room. State v. Brandon, 2020 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 5 (Jan. 31, 2020).

“In determining whether an affidavit for a search warrant provides probable cause sufficient to justify the warrant’s issuance, I do not engage in de novo review. Illinois v. Gates, …. I am, rather, to give deference to the issuing judge’s probable cause finding. Id. If the affidavit shows a ‘fair probability’ that the items sought to be seized are then on the premises, then probable cause exists. … [¶] Applying these factors, I have no hesitation in finding that the affidavits showed probable cause that Grant was a drug dealer. Indeed, there is direct evidence to that effect: the sale to CS 1.[¶] Moreover, he was clever in how he did his dealing. Unlike those who expose themselves by dealing directly hand-to-hand with others, defendant, like a spy, used a vehicular equivalent of a ‘dead drop’ or ‘dead letter box.’ It was also apparent that it was likely he had prospered at his trade, as he was seen driving three different cars, none of which sounds off-the-shelf cheap.” United States v. Grant, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16161 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Informant hearsay, Standards of review. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.