Opinion ID: 2034906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Residence of Suspected Drug Dealer

Text: Relying on State v. Lee, [24] Louthan contends that the record provides no factual basis for Bauer's testimony that the residence he was observing, and from which he observed Louthan exit, was a site of unlawful drug activity. In Lee, the State claimed reasonable suspicion sufficient to prolong the detention of a motorist stopped in a public recreation area based in part upon an averment that law enforcement had `received information prior to this incident that drug dealers and users are meeting at this location for drug transactions.' [25] Noting the lack of any showing regarding the source or reliability of this information, this court held that the averment amounted to little more than conclusory assertions which could not be considered in the reasonable suspicion analysis. [26] The record in this case provides significantly more detail. The site of the suspected drug activity in this case was a specific residence, not a general area as in Lee. Bauer testified that he knew the name of the resident and that the police department had received complaints from neighbors about stop-and-go traffic near the residence. Bauer, who had received specialized drug interdiction training in addition to his training as a drug detection dog handler during his 7 years of service as a Norfolk police officer, testified that stop-and-go traffic at a residential location is an indicator of unlawful drug trade being conducted there. Bauer testified that he had received reports over a period of 2 years that the resident was involved in unlawful drug activity, and he identified by name two persons arrested for drug offenses who reported that they had obtained drugs from the resident of the house. He further testified that the most recent report of drug activity at the residence was approximately 1 month prior to Louthan's arrest. Reasonable suspicion may be based upon information which may not be sufficient to establish probable cause. It follows that the degree of reliability of an informant that must be shown to justify an investigatory stop is less than that required to establish probable cause. [27] We conclude that Bauer's testimony regarding prior drug activity at the residence was sufficiently detailed and reliable to be considered in a reasonable suspicion analysis and that the district court did not err in doing so.