People v. Manzo, 2017 IL App (3d) 150264 (October). Episode 421 (Duration 7:17)

In this search warrant application bones affidavit nonetheless establishes a nexus to defendant’s house.

Gist

The jury found defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon but acquitted him of unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.

The circuit court sentenced defendant to 36 months’ probation.

Search Warrant

This was a search warrant supported by three controlled buys with an informant.

The Buys

On one occasion, officers observed Casillas leave the residence to sell Harrison cocaine.

The officers’ constant surveillance established that Casillas left the residence and sold cocaine to Harrison without making any stops before the transaction. Further, Casillas was seen using a vehicle registered to the residence to conduct a separate drug transaction.

Each time defendant drove to a supermarket for the deal.

Nexus Issue

Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence.

The motion alleged that the complaint for the search warrant failed to establish probable cause to conduct a search of the residence, which led to defendant’s arrest and the seizure of evidence.

Defendant contends the complaint for the search warrant did not establish probable cause because it failed to show a nexus between Casillas’s illegal activities and defendant’s residence.

In other words, defendant asserts probable cause was lacking because the warrant did not include any information or observations connecting Casillas’s illegal activity to defendant’s residence.

In addition, the motion argued that the police failed to seek or find any corroborating information to verify that Casillas lived at the residence.

Illinois Search Warrant Law

At a probable cause hearing, the warrant must make a practical, commonsense assessment of whether, given all of the circumstances set forth in the affidavit, there is a fair probability that evidence of a particular crime will be found in a particular place.

A showing of probable cause means that the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the affiant are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has occurred and that evidence of it is at the place to be searched.

If there is no direct information to establish such a nexus, the court may draw reasonable inferences to create the nexus.

Learn more about Illinois search and seizure issues from other warrant cases.

Analysis

Here, Harrison’s affidavit showed that officers observed Casillas leave defendant’s residence while communicating with Harrison to set up an imminent drug transaction.

While under uninterrupted surveillance, Casillas walked from the residence to the location of the drug transaction.

While under uninterrupted surveillance, Casillas walked from the residence to the location of the drug transaction.

Holding

The information contained within the affidavit sufficiently connected Casillas’s drug activity to defendant’s residence. It was therefore reasonable for the warrant judge to conclude that a nexus existed between Casillas’s cocaine sales and defendant’s residence.

Therefore, the warrant judge had a substantial basis to find probable cause to issue the search warrant for defendant’s residence.

See The Dissent’s “Bare Bones” Critique

The dissent said: Noticeably absent from the complaint are any allegations that Casillas lived in the residence, stored the narcotics in the residence, or conducted any drug transactions inside the residence.

The three alleged transactions occurred over a period of 19 days (May 5 to June 8, 2009).

At best, the complaint established that Casillas was an acquaintance of the owners of the residence.

It did not establish a nexus to believe evidence of Casillas’s illegal activities would be found in the residence. I would therefore find that the complaint for the search warrant failed to provide the warrant judge with a substantial basis to find probable cause to search defendant’s residence.

Critically absent from the complaint are any allegations as to how often Casillas drove the vehicle, how long (if at all) Casillas stayed at the residence, or whether Leticia Hernandez had any connection to Casillas’s illegal activity.

Like the court in Lenyoun, I would find that the “bare bones” affidavit in support of the search warrant failed to establish a nexus connecting Casillas’s illegal activity to the residence.

Therefore, I would hold that the circuit court erred in denying defendant’s motion to quash the search warrant and suppress evidence.