Search & seizure; Probable cause; Zurcher v Stanford Daily; Distinguishing United States v Houser & United States v Miller; Distinguishing United States v Sumlin; Whether there was a sufficient nexus to support the search warrant; United States v. Higgins; United States v. Brown; Corroboration; United States v Woosley; Principle that probable cause is not satisfied by an officer’s mere “hunch”; United States v Arvizu; Warrantless search; Good faith exception to the exclusionary rule; United States v Leon; Distinguishing United States v Reed; Comparing United States v Washington; Effect of a “bare bones” affidavit; United States v Laughton; Confidential informant (CI)

The court held that the district court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress because the police lacked probable cause to search the apartment where the evidence was found, and the good faith exception did not apply to save the fruits of an illegal search. He was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking, and possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress because the affidavit lacked probable cause and failed to set forth a nexus to the apartment. It found “the evidence and statements obtained from the search . . . should have been suppressed because the warrant affidavit failed to establish the existence of probable cause and is not saved by the good faith exception.” Like the affidavits in Brown and Higgins, the officer’s affidavit in this case contained an insufficient nexus to support the search warrant, and the affidavit failed to set forth the CI’s basis of knowledge. In addition, Sumlin did not support a finding of probable cause here, and the affidavit “failed to include even a statement by the affiant officer about his experience and training indicating that drug dealers tend to store evidence in their homes.” The affidavit “failed to establish a nexus between the drug activity and” defendant’s apartment. The court rejected the government’s argument that even if the warrant lacked probable cause, the evidence should not be suppressed, and defendant's convictions should still be upheld under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. “A review of the information presented in the affidavit shows the clear lack of factual circumstances that would support a minimally sufficient nexus.” And because a “reasonable officer would know that the CI’s tip should be given little weight, if any, due to its minimal trustworthiness and reliability, no reasonable officer would believe that the affidavit established probable cause to search the” apartment. Moreover, a “reasonable officer would understand that further corroboration—such as independent surveillance of the apartment or further questioning of the informant to determine whether he had seen drugs inside the apartment—was needed before probable cause could be established to search” it. The government identified no case in which the court “has applied the good faith exception to reliance on a warrant supported by information as scant as the information in the affidavit in this case.” Reversed, vacated, and remanded.