Search & seizure; Motion to suppress; Whether the warrant affidavit offered “probable cause” to search defendant’s house; Whether defendant was a “known drug dealer”; Whether there was a “sufficient nexus” between the criminal activity alleged & the house searched; Claim the affidavit was “missing facts”

The court held that the warrant to search defendant-Long’s house was supported by probable cause, noting it has “repeatedly reaffirmed” that a drug transaction outside of a house where one participant walks back into the house satisfies probable cause and justifies a search of the house. Thus, it affirmed the district court’s denial of Long’s motion to suppress. He was observed selling drugs, including a controlled buy. The transactions occurred at two different houses, one of which was his home. A magistrate issued the search warrant at issue for Long’s home. The search revealed evidence of drug trafficking. After he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the results of the search, illegal drugs and firearms, he pled guilty to four federal charges. On appeal, the court held that the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress was consistent with both its “known drug dealer” case precedent and case precedent “about drug transactions right outside a suspect’s home.” It explained that a nexus is established in known drug dealer cases where the address is the suspect’s home and “the suspect is engaging in continual and ongoing drug trafficking operations.” Here, Long had given the address of the house to the parole authority as his home. Also, the affidavit established that his “drug trafficking was ongoing, continuous, and even tied to his home.” The court held that under the “totality of the circumstances, the affidavit established that Long was a known drug dealer engaged in ongoing trafficking operations who lived at the home to be searched, a location where, experience and common sense teaches, evidence was likely to be found. That is quintessential probable cause.” It rejected his argument that he was not a known drug dealer because when the investigation started, law enforcement did not know who he was, noting it has “never held that a drug dealer must be known before an investigation begins.” As to his argument about facts missing from the affidavit, the court reviews affidavits based on what they contain, “not what they lack.” It noted that “while the missing facts Long highlights might, if present, bolster our decision, their absence does not undercut it.”