E.D.Tenn.: Applying the Sixth Circuit’s “drug dealer inference,” PC exists for the SW for def’s house

Applying the “drug dealer inference” for nexus, the court finds probable cause to believe defendant was dealing drugs from his house to support the search warrant. United States v. Evans, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8686 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 16, 2025):

First, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently clarified “misunderstanding[s] of” its known drug dealer inference precedent. Sanders, 106 F.4th at 465. Those cases “involve a search warrant affidavit indicating that a drug dealer lives at a certain location” but the affidavit lacks “facts indicating that the defendant was dealing drugs from his residence.” Id. at 465 (citation omitted). Because “drug dealers don’t tend to work out of office buildings,” Sixth Circuit precedent “blesse[s] the inference that in the case of drug dealers, evidence [of drug dealing] is likely to be found where the dealers live.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). Law enforcement, however, does not satisfy their probable cause obligation simply by identifying “the home of someone connected to a drug trafficking crime.” Id. at 466. Instead, to establish probable cause through the known drug dealer inference, an affidavit must show that a defendant lives in a particular residence and is engaged in “continual and ongoing [criminal] operations” Id. “[F]acts showing that” a defendant’s “residence had been used in drug trafficking” is not “always necessary for application of” the known drug dealer inference. See United States v. McCoy, 905 F.3d 409, 417 (6th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Indeed, where there is evidence of an “ongoing course of unlawful conduct” it may be “reasonable to conclude that” a defendant “keeps evidence of his illegal scheme in his home.” Id.

Here, the Report did not err in applying the known drug dealer inference to support a finding of probable cause. …

This entry was posted in Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.