Opinion ID: 196972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Probable Cause Connection Between Zayas and 16 Holbrook Road

Text: 19 The district court held that the Graffam affidavit afforded probable cause to believe that Zayas resided or conducted drug operations at 16 Holbrook Road in the past. It found the second CI's identification of 16 Holbrook Road to be reliable because the authorities were able to corroborate so much of [his] statement both as to innocent details and as to incriminating matters, such as Zayas-Diaz's involvement in the cocaine transaction. See Tr. of Suppression Hearing at 107-08 (citing United States v. Taylor, 985 F.2d 3, 6 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 944, 113 S.Ct. 2426, 124 L.Ed.2d 647 (1993)).
20 For evidence to avert suppression, see generally Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961), normally the warrant application must demonstrate probable cause to believe that a particular person has committed a crime--the commission element--and that enumerated evidence relevant to the probable criminality likely is located at the place to be searched--the 'nexus' element. United States v. Fuccillo, 808 F.2d 173, 175 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 482 U.S. 905, 107 S.Ct. 2481, 96 L.Ed.2d 374 (1987). The issuing magistrate ordinarily considers only the facts set forth in supporting affidavits accompanying the warrant application. See, e.g., Whiteley v. Warden, Wyo. State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 565, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 1035, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 109, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); United States v. Klein, 565 F.2d 183, 186 n. 4 (1st Cir.1977). Under the probable cause standard, the totality of the circumstances disclosed in the supporting affidavits must demonstrate a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (emphasis added); United States v. Bucuvalas, 970 F.2d 937, 940 (1st Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 959, 113 S.Ct. 1382, 122 L.Ed.2d 758 (1993). 21 Among others, the factors that may contribute to a probable cause determination include whether an affidavit supports the probable  'veracity' or 'basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, id.; whether informant statements are self-authenticating, see, e.g., Taylor, 985 F.2d at 5 (noting that affidavit may support informant's veracity through the very specificity and detail with which it relates the informant's first-hand description of the place to be searched); whether some or all the informant's factual statements were corroborated wherever reasonable and practicable (e.g., through police surveillance); 5 and whether a law-enforcement affiant included a professional assessment of the probable significance of the facts related by the informant, based on experience or expertise, see United States v. Hoffman, 832 F.2d, 1299, 1306 (1st Cir.1987) (noting that law-enforcement affiants were specially trained in the ways of drug trafficking). None of these factors is indispensable; thus, stronger evidence on one or more factors may compensate for a weaker or deficient showing on another. See Taylor, 985 F.2d at 5; United States v. Nocella, 849 F.2d 33, 37 (1st Cir.1988); United States v. Ciampa, 793 F.2d 19, 22 (1986). 22 Reviewing courts, including both the district court and the court of appeals, must accord considerable deference to the probable cause determination made by the issuing magistrate. See Taylor, 985 F.2d at 5 ([T]he duty of the reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a 'substantial basis for ... conclud[ing]' that probable cause existed.). The reviewing court must examine the affidavit in 'a practical, common sense fashion, and [ ] accord considerable deference to reasonable inferences the [issuing magistrate] may have drawn from the attested facts.'  Bucuvalas, 970 F.2d at 940 (citations omitted). Moreover, given the strong preference for warrants under our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, normally a reviewing court will defer to an issuing magistrate's probable cause determination in a doubtful or marginal case. See United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109, 85 S.Ct. 741, 746, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 823 (5th Cir.1988). 23