Reasonable Inferences From Search Warrant Application Supported Probable Cause to Search Defendant’s Residence for Gun

State v. Yarbrough, Minn.Ct.App., 4/8/2013.  The state took a pretrial appeal of an order granting Mr. Yarbrough’s motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at Mr. Yarbrough’s residence.  The warrant sought both drugs and a gun.  The search warrant affidavit alleged that three days earlier Mr. Yarbrough had been involved “in a terroristic threats situation” during which he accused the victim of the threats of stealing “a large amount” of crack cocaine from him, during which he punched the victim, during which he “brandished” a .22 caliber handgun, and after which he then fled in a maroon Chevy Caprice.  The affidavit went on to say that the Caprice registered to the address sought to be searched, that police data bases established that Mr. Yarbrough lived at that address, that Mr. Yarbrough had been arrested three months earlier for possession of narcotics, and that a snitch “knew "[Mr. Yarbrough] to deal in crack cocaine.”

The trial court suppressed the evidence seized for the reason that there was no nexus between the place to be searched and the alleged criminal activity.  As a consequence, the warrant was not supported by probable cause.  In a 2-1 opinion, the court of appeals reverses the trial court.  The court says that it was a close call whether the affidavit supported the search for drugs, but it was sufficient to support the search for a gun.  It would be reasonable to infer that Mr. Yarbrough kep his piece at his place.

Judge Stauber dissented.  He thought that it required more than an inference to support a nexus between the alleged crimes and the place to be searched.  The affidavit was deficient because it did not allege anything that linked the gun to the address associated with the Caprice; and it did not allege either that someone saw a gun at that address or that Mr. Yarbrough went to that address immediately after the alleged terroristic threats incidence took place.  In sum:

If all that is needed to search a location is a reasonable inference, we defeat the probable cause requirement of the search warrant.  Law enforcement would simply need to establish that an offender possessed a particular item, identify his or her residence, and conclude that it is “common sense and reasonable” to infer that the offender would keep that item at his or her residence.