Search & seizure; Whether the warrant to search defendant’s apartment was supported by “probable cause”; Whether the search warrant affidavit was “stale”; Whether it contained only “conclusory statements”; Whether the district court erred by denying defendant a hearing on the affidavit; Unpreserved text messages; Whether there was a “critical” omission or “falsity”

The court affirmed the district court’s order denying defendant-Higgins’s motion to suppress the evidence seized under a search warrant for his residence where it was supported by “probable cause.” It was not necessary for him to be “seen” selling drugs out of his apartment where all that was needed was an established “connection between the place to be searched and the illicit activity.” Higgins pled guilty to possessing meth and fentanyl with the intent to distribute. On appeal, he challenged the search that led to his arrest, and the denial of his motion to suppress the drug evidence seized when his apartment was searched, claiming the search was not supported by probable cause. He first argued there was an insufficient “nexus” between drug trafficking and the residence to support the warrant. But the court disagreed, explaining it was not necessary to see him selling drugs out of the apartment where all that was needed was an established “connection between the place to be searched and the illicit activity.” It also held that even if the 55 days between the most recent controlled buy and the search made the warrant “stale,” this did not defeat a finding of probable cause where the texts and phone messages he sent the day before the search refreshed the allegedly outdated information. The court rejected his argument that the affidavit was filled with “conclusory statements” where it contained “direct quotations from Higgins’s interactions with the confidential source.” It also held that the district court did not err by denying him a hearing on whether the affidavit contained misrepresentations or omitted relevant information. He claimed the affidavit misled the issuing judge where the government failed to preserve certain text messages that would have shown he was not selling drugs from his residence. However, he failed to offer any evidence that “the officer was lying” when he summarized the messages, and other text messages supported the summary. The “omission” regarding a meeting at his prior residence was not “‘critical’ to the probable-cause determination.” The court also found no error in the affidavit's reference to Higgins’s movements to and from his residence where, despite his claims that they created a false impression, the statements were not “false.”