Opinion ID: 2979889
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: First arrest and search of home

Text: Police obtained a warrant to arrest Briggs and search his home after the controlled buy with Goosetree. Briggs argues that the warrant was not supported by probable cause because the affidavit supporting the application was based on only an unreliable informant, did not contain any No. 09-5953 USA v. Briggs Page 8 corroborating information, and did not establish a nexus between Briggs’s home and evidence of a crime. He additionally claims that, because there was no probable cause, the officers who executed the warrant could not have done so in good faith. These claims fail. The affidavit supporting the warrant application was based partially upon a tip from an anonymous informant (Spencer). She told police that Briggs was trafficking drugs through his house, that he kept a gun in his bedroom, and that drug purchasers would park down the street from Briggs’s house in a parking lot before walking up to the house to buy drugs. In addition, following the anonymous tip, police observed multiple people park down the road from Briggs’s home, walk to the house, and engage in what appeared to be drug deals with Briggs. Police followed the second man they observed, Goosetree, who admitted to buying cocaine from Briggs and gave police two baggies of cocaine that he bought from Briggs. Goosetree then engaged Briggs in the controlled buy while under police surveillance and recording, after which he gave police cocaine that he purchased from Briggs. Therefore, Briggs’s claim that the affidavit was premised on only an unreliable informant is baseless. It contained much more. His claim that the affidavit lacked corroborating information is baseless for the same reasons. Furthermore, the affidavit established a nexus between Briggs’s home and criminal activity. In addition to the anonymous tip, the police surveillance of potential drug buys at Briggs’s home, the information from Goosetree about purchasing drugs from Briggs at his home, and the controlled buy at Briggs’s home all connected Briggs’s suspected criminal activity to his home. This is sufficient to reasonably expect evidence of drug dealing to be located at Briggs’s home. Cf. United States v. Gunter, 551 F.3d 472, 481 (6th Cir. 2009) (finding that there was probable cause to believe No. 09-5953 USA v. Briggs Page 9 evidence of criminal activity would be found at defendant’s home when defendant was engaged in drug trafficking); United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 975 (6th Cir. 1998) (“[I]n the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live . . . .”). Because Briggs’s attacks upon the warrant fail, his claim that the officers could not have executed the warrant in good faith must fail as well. This argument is premised upon the warrant actually lacking probable cause, but Briggs has failed to establish this condition. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Briggs’s motion in regard to his first arrest and the search of his home.