CA10: When PC is shown, nexus to home can be “thin”

“Defendant acknowledges that the affidavit in support of the search warrant ‘establishes probable cause to believe [Defendant] distributed controlled substances’ (and it plainly does), but says ‘the nexus between his drug activity and the apartment is thin.’ Aplt’s Op. Br. at 24. We think otherwise. To be sure, our precedents require a nexus between a defendant’s drug dealing and his residence before probable cause exists to search the residence. … But where probable cause exists to believe a defendant is dealing drugs, we have explained that ‘little “additional evidence” is generally required’ before probable cause exists to search the defendant’s residence. … ‘In some cases, the “additional evidence” linking an individual’s suspected illegal activity to his home has thus come in the form of an affiant officer’s statement that certain evidence—in his or her professional experience—is likely to be found in a defendant’s residence.’” United States v. Moss, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 26622 (10th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024).

“We therefore conclude that ‘the normal speed of traffic’ pursuant to § 28-721(B) necessarily refers to a speed not exceeding the maximum posted speed set forth in § 28-702.04. Under this construction, the failure to pace a speeding car can never be the sole basis for finding a failure to proceed at ‘the normal speed of traffic’ in violation of § 28-721(B). The state has articulated no other basis for finding Alvarez-Soto in violation of § 28-721(B), the only ground Trooper Shewey articulated for the stop.” State v. Alvarez-Soto, 2024 Ariz. App. LEXIS 123 (Oct. 21, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Nexus, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.