COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick,* Judge Annunziata and 

 Senior Judge Duff 

Argued at Alexandria, Virginia 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION** BY 

v. Record No. 1471-97-4 CHIEF JUDGE JOHANNA L. FITZPATRICK 

 NOVEMBER 25, 1997 

SHARON McINTYRE 

 FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA 

Wiley R. Wright, Jr., Judge Designate 

 H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney 

General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellant. 

 Jonathan Shapiro (Law Offices of Jonathan 

Shapiro, P.C., on brief), for appellee. 

 Sharon McIntyre (appellee) was indicted for possession of 

cocaine and marijuana in violation of Code § 18.2-250. Appellee 

filed a motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of a 

search of 3201 Landover Street #1202 in Alexandria. The trial 

court granted the suppression motion, and the Commonwealth noted 

an appeal pursuant to Code § 19.2-398(2). On appeal, the 

Commonwealth argues that the trial court erred (1) in finding 

that the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to 

provide probable cause for the search; and (2) in refusing to 

apply the good faith exception to justify the search. We hold 

that the affidavit established a sufficient nexus between the 

 

 *On November 19, 1997, Judge Fitzpatrick succeeded Judge 

Moon as chief judge. 

 **Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

evidence sought and the place searched to justify the issuance of 

the search warrant. For the following reasons, we reverse and 

remand. 

Background

 Appellee lived in apartment #1202 at 3201 Landover Street 

with her daughter, Lisa Lafay, the named lessee. On January 16, 

1997, Detective Shawn Monaghan of the Fairfax County Narcotics 

Division appeared before an Alexandria magistrate and obtained a 

search warrant for "3201 Landover Street #1202, Alexandria, 

Virginia, (City of Alexandria)." The purpose of the search was 

to locate money, paraphernalia, records and documents related to 

the distribution of cocaine. Although appellee was not the 

target of the investigation, upon executing the warrant, 

Detective Monaghan discovered cocaine and other evidence that 

implicated appellee and led to her indictment. Because appellee 

challenges the sufficiency of the affidavit supporting the search 

warrant, we set out the contents in some detail. 

 In the seven-page affidavit, Detective Monaghan described 

his investigation into the cocaine-related activities of 

Christopher Charles Lafay, appellee's son-in-law.1

 Monaghan 

spoke with two confidential informants who indicated that Lafay 

distributed cocaine in Fairfax County, that he had been seen with 

large amounts of cocaine, marijuana and cash, that Lafay had 

 

 1The affidavit also described Detective Monaghan's training 

and experience, including seven years of undercover work and four 

years in the Narcotics Division. 
 3 

 

previously stored large quantities of illegal controlled 

substances in a storage bin at Shurgood Storage Centers, and that 

he drove a Ford with Virginia license ZLZ-1773. Detective 

Monaghan investigated the license plate number and learned that 

it was registered to a Ford four-wheel drive vehicle owned by 

Chris Lafay. He also obtained Lafay's Social Security number and 

date of birth and used them to discover that Lafay pled guilty to 

"trafficking cocaine by possession" in 1993. After he confirmed 

that Chris Lafay owned unit #18 at Shurgood Storage, the 

detective obtained and executed a search warrant on the storage 

bin.2

 He discovered records in the name of Chris Lafay and a 

baggie containing white powder-type residue that field-tested as 

cocaine. 

 Further investigation revealed that Chris Lafay was married 

to Lisa Lafay, who also pled guilty to "trafficking cocaine by 

possession" in 1993, and whose current address was 3201 Landover 

Street, Apartment #1202 in Alexandria. While conducting 

surveillance, Monaghan observed Chris Lafay's Ford parked in 

front of Lisa's apartment building. One concerned citizen in the 

 2The affidavit for the storage bin search warrant stated, in 

part, "it is the experience of your Affiant that, to avoid 

detection and apprehension by law enforcement, habitual drug 

dealers are aware of, study, and take measures to protect 

themselves from the undercover operations undertaken by law 

enforcement personnel. These measures include but are not 

limited to, the use of storage facilities to house large amounts 

of drugs/narcotics and cash. The storage facility is used to 

keep the drugs and cash out of their immediate possession, but 

still easily accessible and secure." This information was not 

contained in the affidavit for the disputed search. 
 4 

management office of the apartment building told the detective 

that Lisa lived in apartment #1202, that Chris had been coming 

and going during the past few weeks, and that the citizen 

believed Chris was staying in that apartment with Lisa. A second 

concerned citizen told Detective Monaghan that he had seen a 

black 1991 Explorer with Virginia license ZLZ-1773 parked in 

front of the building. 

 The affidavit further stated: 

 It is the experience of your affiant that 

persons who traffic in cocaine do keep 

records and documents to insure a continued 

supply of customers and source of supply, as 

well as money, financial records reflecting 

amounts and kinds of controlled substances 

purchased with amounts paid and received. 

These records include, but are not limited 

to, telephone books, toll records, address 

books, computers, computer disks, electronic 

storage devices, and money lists showing 

money paid and owed. Persons who regularly 

traffic in controlled substances also keep 

paraphernalia used in the sale of controlled 

substances to include, but not limited to, 

scales, baggies, measuring devices, aluminum 

foil and other types of containers. 

 At the hearing on appellee's motion to suppress, the trial 

court found that the affidavit failed to establish the requisite 

nexus between the items sought and the place to be searched and 

that the Leon good faith exception did not apply. The court 

failed to reach appellee's contentions that the magistrate's 

failure to comply with Code § 19.2-54 and the affiant's material 

omission (see supra, note 2) also required suppression of the 

evidence. 
 5 

Validity of the Warrant

 "The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a 

practical commonsense decision whether, given all the 

circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him . . . there 

is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will 

be found in a particular place." Miles v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. 

App. 64, 68-69, 408 S.E.2d 602, 604-05 (1991) (citing Illinois v. 

Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)), aff'd en banc, 14 Va. App. 82, 

414 S.E.2d 619 (1992). "The initial determination of probable 

cause requires the magistrate to weigh the evidence presented in 

light of the totality of the circumstances." Tart v. 

Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 384, 387, 437 S.E.2d 219, 221 (1993). 

"'[A] magistrate may draw reasonable inferences from the material 

supplied to him.'" Miles, 13 Va. App. at 69, 408 S.E.2d at 605 

(quoting Williams v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 53, 68, 354 S.E.2d 

79, 87 (1987)). 

 "When reviewing a decision to issue a warrant, a reviewing 

court must grant great deference to the magistrate's 

interpretation of the predicate facts supporting the issuance of 

a search warrant and to the determination of whether probable 

cause supported the warrant." Janis v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 

646, 652, 472 S.E.2d 649, 652 (citation omitted), aff'd en banc, 

23 Va. App. 696, 479 S.E.2d 534 (1996). See Ornelas v. United 

States, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 1657, 1663 (1996) (stating that 

"the scrutiny applied to a magistrate's probable-cause 
 6 

determination to issue a warrant is less than that for 

warrantless searches"). "'A deferential standard of review is 

appropriate to further the Fourth Amendment's strong preference 

for searches conducted pursuant to a warrant.'" Tart, 17 Va. 

App. at 388, 437 S.E.2d at 221 (quoting Williams, 4 Va. App. at 

68, 354 S.E.2d at 87). 

 The underlying affidavit in the instant case provided the 

magistrate with a substantial basis for determining probable 

cause. The affidavit contained statements of confidential 

informants that Chris Lafay sold cocaine and kept drugs and 

drug-related paraphernalia in his rented storage bin. The 

affidavit described in detail Detective Monaghan's investigation 

and his corroboration of information provided by concerned 

citizens. The detective discovered some records and evidence of 

cocaine in Lafay's storage bin, and he learned that Lafay was 

married, that his wife leased the apartment to be searched, and 

that Lafay had frequented her apartment building recently. 

Additionally, the affidavit reviewed Monaghan's extensive 

training and experience in drug-related investigation and 

described the detective's experience and knowledge that drug 

dealers keep drug-related records and paraphernalia. The 

affidavit reasonably supported the inference that Chris Lafay was 

a drug dealer, that he was living with his wife at her apartment, 

and that he kept drug-related records and paraphernalia. 

 "A magistrate is entitled to draw reasonable inferences 
 7 

about where incriminating evidence is likely to be found, based 

on the nature of the evidence and the type of offense." Gwinn v. 

Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 972, 975, 434 S.E.2d 901, 904 (1993) 

(citing United States v. Fannin, 817 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

 "In the case of drug dealers, evidence of that ongoing criminal 

activity is likely to be found where the dealer resides." Gwinn, 

16 Va. App. at 976, 434 S.E.2d at 904 (citation omitted). The 

magistrate could reasonably infer that drug-related records or 

paraphernalia would probably be found at 3201 Landover Street 

#1202 in Alexandria. Therefore, we hold that the affidavit 

provided an adequate nexus linking evidence of Chris Lafay's 

drug-related activity to the premises searched. 

Good Faith Exception

 "Assuming, arguendo, that the warrant was not issued upon 

probable cause, evidence seized pursuant to the warrant is 

nevertheless admissible if the officer executing the warrant 

reasonably believed that the warrant was valid." Tart, 17 Va. 

App. at 389, 437 S.E.2d at 222 (citing United States v. Leon, 468 

U.S. 897 (1984)) (other citations omitted). However, the good 

faith exception is not available in the following four instances: 

 "(1)[W]here the magistrate was misled by 

information in the affidavit which the 

affiant knew was false or should have known 

was false, (2) the issuing magistrate totally 

abandoned his judicial role, (3) the warrant 
 8 

was based on an affidavit so lacking in 

indicia of probable cause as to render 

official belief in its existence unreasonable

or (4) where the warrant was so facially 

deficient that an executing officer could not 

reasonably have assumed it was valid." 

Janis, 22 Va. App. at 653, 472 S.E.2d at 653 (citation omitted). 

 Appellee argues that this case is "identical" to Janis, 

where this Court held that an affidavit supporting a search 

warrant "gave absolutely no indication that the fruits of 

criminal activity would probably be found at [the location 

searched]." Id. Appellee's reliance is misplaced. The 

affidavit at issue in Janis failed to indicate the address to be 

searched or to explain why contraband would be found there. Id.

at 652, 472 S.E.2d at 653. The affidavit in the instant case 

described Lafay's confirmed presence at the apartment building 

where his wife maintained a residence and described why the 

detective believed he would find drug-related evidence there. 

This information, in the context of the detailed investigation, 

provides sufficient indicia of probable cause to justify the 

warrant under the good faith exception to the search warrant 

requirement. 

 Reversed and remanded.