Opinion ID: 2105296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence of Nexus Between Criminal Activity, the Things to Be Seized, and the Place to Be Searched.

Text: As noted above, the judge issuing the warrant must believe evidence of a crime will be found on the premises to be searched. This nexus between criminal activity, the items to be seized and the place to be searched `can be found by considering the type of crime, the nature of the items involved, the extent of the defendant's opportunity for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the defendant would be likely to conceal the items.' Randle, 555 N.W.2d at 671 (quoting State v. Groff, 323 N.W.2d 204, 212 (Iowa 1982)). The district court sustained the defendants' motions to suppress in part because it concluded there was an insufficient showing the property seen by the informant was in fact stolen property and because there was an insufficient showing the methamphetamine observed in the possession of Gogg and Mead would be found at the location to be searched. We discuss the nexus requirement separately with respect to the stolen property and the drugs.
that a computer matching the description of the one taken from the IBP Incorporated hog buying station was seen at a residence located at 215 Main Street, Orchard, Iowa. Particularly, an Excalibur modem was seen that is the same name and type of modem taken in the IBP burglary. Also seen at the same residence was at least one telephone matching the description of phones taken at each burglary. The district court criticized Officer Mork's affidavit because there was no showing the items observed were unique or unusual; consequently, because computer equipment and phones are items commonly found in residences, there was no reason to think the items seen at 215 Main Street were stolen from IBP. We agree with the district court's conclusions. Where items to be seized are not unique, mere similarity to property involved in a crime will not support probable cause. Seager, 341 N.W.2d at 427. In Seager, we held the similarity of a gun and ammunition to those used in a murder did not suggest any measurable degree of probability that the defendant's rifle was the murder weapon. Id. We concluded it only created a suspicion which would warrant further investigation. Id. The situation here is similar. The property observed by the confidential informant included a Compaq computer, an Excalibur modem and a white Panasonic cordless telephone. [3] Computers and phones are commonly found in personal residences. Moreover, the affidavit lacked any information to indicate the particular ones seen at the Gogg/Mead residence were unique in some way. Other than the similarity of these items to property stolen from IBP, there are no facts or circumstances linking these items to the burglaries. Under this record, we must conclude, as did the district court, that the warrant lacked probable cause to believe the property seen by the informant was stolen. See Seager, 341 N.W.2d at 427 (fact that rifle and ammunition on premises to be searched was of same type as gun and ammunition used in murder was insufficient to establish nexus with homicide). [4] B. Drugs. The defendants claim Officer Mork made an insufficient showing that drugs would be found at the residence to be searched. They argue (1) there was no specific statement in the affidavit that Gogg and Mead possessed methamphetamine at the address to be searched, and (2) there was no specific statement in the affidavit that the address to be searched was the residence of Gogg and Mead. The defendants assert that one of these statements is necessary to show a nexus between drugs and 215 Main Street. In his affidavit, Officer Mork stated the confidential informant saw Gogg and Mead in possession of 2 plastic bags of powder substance, believed to be methamphetamine. This statement directly followed a description of the stolen items seen at the residence located at 215 Main Street. The informant's description of the drugs he observed is followed by a summary of information provided by another police officer that over the course of the past few months, officers in Mitchell County have received numerous complaints from several citizens in Orchard concerning the volume of traffic at the Gogg/Mead residence. No location is mentioned in this recitation of the informant's and authorities' observations other than the residence of Gogg and Mead. We think the issuing judge could reasonably infer from the context within which the statements concerning drugs were made that the drugs, like the stolen property, were seen at the residence located at 215 Main Street. Additionally, the issuing judge could reasonably infer from the affidavit that this residence was the home of Gogg and Mead. The supporting affidavit expressly refers to the Gogg/Mead residence, and the only residence identified in the affidavit is the 215 Main Street address in Orchard, Iowa. We conclude there are three facts shown by the application and attachments that support a conclusion drugs would be found at the location to be searched: (1) Gogg and Mead were seen in possession of methamphetamine at that location; (2) the location was the residence of Gogg and Mead; and (3) citizens had been complaining about the large volume of traffic in and out of this residence. The district court erred in holding there was not a substantial basis to support the issuing judge's finding of a nexus between the drugs and related items to be seized and the place to be searched.