Search & seizure; The “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule; United States v. Leon; Inference of a nexus between defendant & his residence; United States v. Williams

The court reversed the district court’s order suppressing the evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant of defendant-Reed's residence and the inculpatory statements he made after the search, holding that the affidavit identified a minimal nexus between the criminal activity and the place to be searched that was sufficient to trigger the Leon good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The police executed search warrants relating to Reed’s suspected drug activity. He was charged with drug and firearm offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of a home (on Kate Bond Road) he shared with his girlfriend, claiming that the affidavit “failed to identify a ‘nexus’ between his drug dealing and the home so as to raise an inference that drug records or proceeds would be found there.” Ruling that the affidavit failed to contain evidence that Reed conducted drug activity from that home and that Leon’s good-faith exception did not apply, the district court granted his motion. On appeal, the court noted that many courts have considered it “common sense” that a suspect’s home would “be a likely place” for that suspect to keep evidence of a crime. It observed that there is a line of cases that “suggest that courts generally may find a nexus to search a drug dealer’s home ‘even “when there is absolutely no indication of any wrongdoing occurring”’ there.” But it noted there is another line of cases requiring that the affidavit “‘include facts that directly connect the residence with the suspected drug dealing activity[.]’” The court concluded that it did not have to resolve the probable cause question here, where the facts “sit on the hazy constitutional border between a sufficient nexus and an insufficient hunch[,]” because in this case, the Leon good-faith exception applied. An informant had recently made controlled buys from Reed at the other searched locations and Reed was seen engaged in suspicious activity near those sites; the police had probable cause to believe that Reed lived on Kate Bond Road; he was seen engaging in drug transactions near one of the other searched locations; and he had “many prior drug convictions.” The court also saw relevance in the prior training and experience of the officer who provided the affidavit. It held that he “did not behave recklessly by relying on the state judge’s conclusion that Reed’s drug activity sufficed.” Remanded.