holding that drug paraphernalia recovered from a trash pull supported a finding of probable cause
How later courts described this case
- holding that drug paraphernalia recovered from a trash pull supported a finding of probable cause
- holding that affidavit did not support probable cause where “the only proper evidence the [a]ffidavit contained * * * was the ‘several’ marijuana roaches and T2–laced plastic bags the police recovered from the trash pull”
- holding that drug paraphernalia recovered from a trash pull outside of the home supports a finding of probable cause when combined with other evidence of the resident’s involvement in drug crimes
- explaining that information is stale when it is “impossible to tell from the affidavit when the circumstances giving rise to probable cause occurred” and that the court does not consider stale information
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
DISSENT
I respectfully disagree with my colleagues that the evidence from the trash pull did not establish probable cause. In the trash can, officers found several marijuana roaches, vacuum-sealed baggies containing ’ marijuana residue, and mail addressed to the defendant. The address on the mail was the address of the house later searched, which is reason enough to think the roaches and baggies came from that same house. Taken together, these facts created a fair probability that the officers would find contraband or evidence of a drug crime in the house. See United States v. Lawrence, 308 F.3d 623, 627 (6th Cir. 2002). In Laiwence, we held that the officers’ discovery of plastic bags containing cocaine residue in the defendant’s trash was enough to establish probable cause, even if the tip that triggered the trash pull should have been excised from the warrant affidavit. Id. at 626, 627 . We should find probable cause here as well. I would therefore affirm the district court’s order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress.