finding that because there was probable cause to believe defendant was involved in drug trafficking, there was probable cause to search home, noting affiant stated that in his experience traffickers often keep additional supplies of drugs, weapons, and cash at their residences, and concluding that “[w]hen there is probable cause that a defendant is dealing drugs, there often tends to be probable cause that evidence of that drug dealing will be found in the defendant’s residence”
How later courts described this case
- finding that because there was probable cause to believe defendant was involved in drug trafficking, there was probable cause to search home, noting affiant stated that in his experience traffickers often keep additional supplies of drugs, weapons, and cash at their residences, and concluding that “[w]hen there is probable cause that a defendant is dealing drugs, there often tends to be probable cause that evidence of that drug dealing will be found in the defendant’s residence”
- explaining that, following a Franlcs hearing, the question of whether the search warrant affidavit created probable cause to search defendant’s apartment broke down into "subsidiary questions: [£]irst, was there probable cause to believe [defendant] was engaged in drug trafficking[,] ... [a]nd second, if so, does that create probable cause to search his apartment”
- finding probable cause to arrest defendant for drug charges, even though “it remained possible that Cardoza would turn out not to be a drug dealer” (emphasis in original)
- noting that the defendant’s possession of three disposable cell phones when he was arrested increased the likelihood that he was involved in drug trafficking activity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BROWN, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
In conceding the falsity of the four challenged statements and declining to contest the District Court’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to show probable cause of an illegal gambling operation, the government’s nervy litigation strategy has made this a far closer case than it might otherwise have been. I write only to emphasize that while the government ultimately prevails, its victory should be looked upon as a warning, not an invitation. We have found probable cause by only a hair’s breadth. Efforts to establish probable cause based on affidavits less substantial than the corrected and qualified affidavit now before this Court are unlikely to inch over the threshold.