Opinion ID: 172456
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nexus Issue

Text: Mr. Timley alleges an insufficient nexus existed between the items listed in the warrant and the place searched because the two controlled buys occurred six -16- months prior to issuance of the warrant and officers determined he lived at a residence different from the one for which the warrant was issued. While Mr. Timley acknowledges the evidence found in the trash demonstrated possible evidence of criminal activity at the place searched, he points out that Deputy Clemmons’s affidavit did not indicate whether the drug residue and paraphernalia were found in the same bag as the mail addressed to Mr. Timley’s wife. He also suggests, as he did before the district court, that anyone driving or walking through the alley could have placed the trash in the location from which it was seized. “Whether a sufficient nexus has been established between a defendant’s suspected criminal activity and his residence ... depends [on] the facts of each case.” Biglow, 562 F.3d at 1279. Thus, when reviewing an affidavit in support of a search warrant, we do not require “hard evidence or personal knowledge of illegal activity [to] link a Defendant’s suspected unlawful activity to his home.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). “Instead, we have indicated that a sufficient nexus is established once an affidavit describes circumstances which would warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the articles sought are at a particular place.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, “judges may rely on the opinion of law enforcement officers as to where contraband or other evidence may be kept” as well as inferences reasonably -17- drawn from the “evidence connecting a defendant’s suspected activity to his residence ....” Id. at 1279-80 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Applying these principles to the circumstances presented, it is apparent Mr. Timley’s suspected activity involved the distribution of marijuana and other drugs, as demonstrated by the controlled purchases made six months earlier. Similarly, the trash in question obtained from the alley directly behind the Scotland Avenue residence contained evidence of suspected drug distribution, together with items connecting Mr. Timley with that residence, including mail addressed to his wife and a piece of paper containing his first name. Based on these circumstances, an inference could reasonably be drawn connecting Mr. Timley’s suspected drug distribution activities to his residence. Mr. Timley’s argument no nexus existed because officers determined he lived at a residence different from the one searched grossly mischaracterizes Deputy Clemmons’s affidavit. While Deputy Clemmons stated his original surveillance of Mr. Timley indicated he lived at 528 S.E. 33 rd Terrace, he also clarified that subsequent surveillance established: (1) Mr. Timley’s green minivan and older-model automobile had been transported to and parked at the Scotland Avenue residence; (2) he witnessed someone fitting Mr. Timley’s description leave the Scotland Avenue house and move the green minivan; and (3) -18- the S.E. 33 rd Terrace residence had been vacated, as confirmed by a Topeka police officer who had information Mr. Timley was presently living at the Scotland Avenue address at the time Deputy Clemmons submitted his affidavit. Next, we can readily dismiss Mr. Timley’s argument no nexus existed because the two controlled buys occurred six months prior to issuance of the warrant, given our previous determination evidence from the residence “trash pull” refreshed that conduct. We are also unpersuaded by Mr. Timley’s contention no nexus existed because it is unclear whether the drug-related items were found in the same bag as the items indicating he maintained his residence there. While knowledge as to whether those items were found together in one bag, rather than in two separate bags, would have presented even stronger evidence of a nexus between the suspected activity and the place searched, the fact both bags were located together in the alley directly behind the residence to be searched is more than adequate to establish the requisite nexus for the purpose of issuing a search warrant, which, again, only requires inferences reasonably drawn from the “evidence connecting a defendant’s suspected activity to his residence ....” Biglow, 562 F.3d at 1280-81. Similarly, while it is possible a passerby could have placed the incriminating drug evidence in the two tied-up garbage bags in the alley directly -19- behind Mr. Timley’s residence, Mr. Timley was suspected of marijuana and other drug distribution activities, and, correspondingly, the trash found in the alley directly behind his residence contained evidence of such drug distribution. Based on these circumstances, a reasonable or prudent person would believe a fair probability existed that the trash removed from those bags was likely connected with the home to be searched, rather than as a result of someone coincidentally discarding drug-related rubbish into Mr. Timley’s tied garbage bags while passing through the same alley.