Search & seizure; Motion to suppress evidence seized under a search warrant for defendant’s residence; Probable cause; Whether a nexus between the home & any alleged drug activity was established; Probable cause when considering a “profit-type” drug trafficker; The “continual-and-ongoing-operations theory”; United States v McCoy; United States v Sumlin; United States v Sanders; Confidential informant’s (CI) credibility

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court affirmed the denial of defendant-Simmons’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during a search of his home, holding that the search warrant affidavit sufficiently detailed his ongoing drug trafficking and the likelihood that trafficking records would be found in the home. The officer who submitted the affidavit for the search warrant (S) and the police department vice unit conducted a months-long investigation of Simmons’s activities. After selling drugs to a CI, Simmons “would typically go from the buy to a house on Holly Street, enter briefly, and then continue to a home on Weatherwood Drive.” S concluded the Weatherwood house was Simmons’s primary residence and that he “was a profit-type trafficker[,]” rather than a “user-type.” S obtained search warrants for both houses. At the Weatherwood house, police discovered drugs, cash, handguns, ammunition, and cellphones. At the Holly Street house, they discovered drugs, a fake ID, and more guns and ammunition. Simmons was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances and other offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence from his Weatherwood home, arguing that the affidavit was not supported by probable cause where the government failed to establish a nexus between the house and any alleged drug activity. The district court denied the motion, and Simmons pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute controlled substances, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The court explained that when determining whether probable cause exists in a case involving a drug dealer, common sense would suggest that “when an individual is a suspect of a crime, his home will ‘often’ be a ‘likely place’ for him to keep the means, fruits, and evidence of his crime.” The court noted that it has found probable cause under the “continual-and-ongoing-operations theory” in drug cases involving profit-type traffickers “‘even when there is absolutely no indication of any wrongdoing occurring at that residence.’” It made clear that “a dealer’s status alone is not enough to” support a probable cause finding. “To support an allegation of ongoing drug dealing, the warrant affidavit must detail ‘recent, reliable evidence of drug activity’ and the place to be searched should be the dealer’s current residence.” The court found that the CI “was highly credible.” Additionally, S had surveilled the Weatherwood home and confirmed that it was Simmons’s residence. The court held that based on the CI’s controlled buys and S’s “assessment of Simmons based on those buys, the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that a search of the Weatherwood home would uncover evidence of wrongdoing.”