Facts
On April 29, 2023, Ricky Wilson was allegedly eating at a Waffle House when a verbal altercation broke out with another customer. During the dispute, Wilson opened his backpack and pulled out a green pistol fitted with a drum magazine, placing the victim in fear for his life. The victim later identified Wilson’s vehicle leaving the scene, as well as Wilson himself and the distinctive green pistol. A detective investigating Wilson for an unrelated crime came across the police report from the Waffle House incident. The detective knew that Wilson’s girlfriend rented an apartment at 212 Central Avenue and had previously surveilled the complex.
On May 15—two weeks after the Waffle House incident—the detective observed Wilson’s car parked at 212 Central. He then sought both an arrest warrant for Wilson and a search warrant for 212 Central to seize evidence connected to the Waffle House incident.
The detective’s affidavit in support of the search warrant stated, in relevant part:
Ricky Wilson’s residence is a multi-story, multi-family triplex located on the west side of Central Avenue. . . . Wilson’s apartment is clearly marked by a black number “212” on the white background, just to the right of the door. Intel obtained during the investigation confirmed that Wilson’s girlfriend rents the apartment and witnesses have confirmed seeing Wilson at the residence. WHERE THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED ITEM(S) IS/ARE BELIEVED TO BE LOCATED: All items related to the aggravated assault investigation. Ammunition, drum magazines, firearms, backpacks containing firearms and any other evidence related to criminal activity observed during the search. The affidavit also recounted Wilson’s alleged conduct at the Waffle House:
While conducting the computer queries on Ricky C. Wilson, Detective Stoltz located a Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office report dated April 29, 2023 written under item D-21545-23. In that report, Wilson and his vehicle are named as the person of interest. Wilson is suspected of pulling a firearm from his backpack while inside of the Waffle House located at 559 Behrman Highway during a verbal argument with another patron. On Wednesday, May 10, 2023, Detective Stoltz and Special Agent Sean Timber met with the victim in that incident. During a videotaped interview the victim advised the suspect Ricky Wilson was at the location with a female eating. At one point, the suspect began rapping songs with vulgar language in front of an elderly couple who was also in the business eating. As the suspect finished rapping, a separate customer made comments about it and as the suspect turned to engage, he engaged the victim and not the actual person commenting. A conversation ensued to the point that the suspect believed he was being disrespected so he reached into his backpack and pulled out what the victim described as a “greenish” colored pistol with a drum magazine. The victim advised the suspect did not actually point the firearm at him but the entire time the suspect was holding the firearm; he was in fear for his life. The victim described at any second during the conversation the suspect could have pointed the firearm, pulled the trigger and shot him or anyone else in the business.
During the interview the victim was given a six person photo array. As the victim reviewed the array, he eliminated five of the suspects and identified the photo depicting Ricky C. Wilson. After a positive identification, Detective Stoltz showed the victim a photo of Wilson’s vehicle that he also positively identified. Finally, Detective Stoltz showed the victim a recent Instagram video of Wilson rapping with a Glock pistol and drum magazine. The victim positively identified the firearm. As the interview ended, the victim confirmed that he wanted to pursue charges against the suspect. Having arrested Ricky C. Wilson in the past, Detective Stoltz confirmed his identity.
A state judge issued the warrant that morning. Officers searched 212 Central and found ammunition, marijuana, and a firearm. Wilson was charged with possessing marijuana with intent to distribute, possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number.
Wilson moved to suppress the evidence. The district court granted the motion, finding that the affidavit offered no nexus between the assault at the Waffle House and the search of the residence and was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. The Government appealed. The 5th affirmed.
Analysis
If a warrant lacks probable cause, the resulting search violates the Fourth Amendment, and the evidence is ordinarily suppressed. This exclusionary rule is designed to deter unlawful searches and seizures. However, there is a good-faith exception: evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the warrant was unsupported by probable cause. But there is an exception to that exception. The good-faith rule applies only if reliance on the warrant was itself reasonable. It does not apply—and the evidence is inadmissible—if the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable. Such “bare-bones affidavits” are rare, but when they appear, the good-faith exception falls away and the exclusionary rule governs.
Applying that framework, we ask two questions: (1) whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies; and (2) whether probable cause supported the warrant.
A. Good faith exeception
This affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause—so bereft of any factual connection to the place searched—that it was unreasonable for officers to believe probable cause existed. To be sure, the affidavit recounted in considerable detail Wilson’s alleged conduct at Waffle House—likely enough for probable cause to arrest.
But probable cause to arrest is not probable cause to search. The Fourth Amendment demands a particularized showing that evidence is likely to be found in the place to be searched. For a search warrant, the affidavit must establish a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Put differently, it must establish a nexus between the house to be searched and the evidence sought either by direct observation or through normal inferences as to where the articles sought would be located. Under the good-faith exception, the question becomes whether officers objectively could reasonably believe that there was such a nexus.
Here, the affidavit offered nothing—no observations, no inferences, no corroborated tips—linking the Waffle House incident to 212 Central. It described the building’s appearance and labeled it Wilson’s apartment, noted that witnesses have confirmed seeing Wilson at the residence, and leapt from residence to contraband with nothing more than the bald assertion that items related to the Waffle House investigation were believed to be located there. That was it. That is assertion without substantiation. Not one fact—not even a conclusory allegation— tied the alleged assault to contraband inside 212 Central. Even if Wilson lived there—and the record makes that claim dubious, at best —that fact alone cannot justify a search. The fact that there is probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime does not automatically give the police probable cause to search his house for evidence of that crime. One concerns the person; the other concerns the place. And the Constitution demands a factual bridge between the two. Freedom in one’s own dwelling is the archetype of the privacy protection secured by the Fourth Amendment.
Consistent with the centuries-old principle that the home is entitled to special protection, we have deemed affidavits bare bones when they provided no information linking the criminal investigation to the defendant’s residence. This affidavit is no different. It alleged no suspicious activity at or near 212 Central, and its lone, unexplained assertion that officers believed contraband was located at Wilson’s residence is far too thin to make probable cause reasonable. Speculation about what might be found at a residence cannot satisfy the Fourth Amendment. To be sure, some items one would normally expect to be kept at home—such as mail, passports, or bank records—may justify a residential search.
But the the notion that few places are more convenient than one’s residence for use in planning criminal activities and hiding fruits of a crime does not provide carte blanche for searching a home when one is suspected of illegal activity. That inference applies to inherently domestic personal papers and effects, not to all forms of evidence. Firearms brandished in public altercations are not akin to passports in a drawer. They are portable, easily transferred, and often quickly discarded. To hide evidence of a crime, a suspect may just as readily dispose of or move a gun as conceal it at home. And even if he initially stashes it in his residence, the likelihood that it remains there quickly dwindles with each passing day. We do not doubt that it can sometimes be reasonable to infer that criminals hide firearms in their homes. But the Fourth Amendment demands more than generalities: each affidavit must tether such an inference to the particular circumstances of the case. The affidavit here offered no facts suggesting that the green pistol seen at the Waffle House ever made its way to 212 Central—or why, two weeks later, it would likely still be there.
Again, a specific nexus must be shown before officers may assume that contraband or instrumentalities of crime are kept at a residence. For guns-on-the-go items such as ammunition, drum magazines, and weapons, the affidavit still had to connect the house with the criminal operations. Here, it did not. Its conclusory assertion that officers believed contraband was located at the residence supplied no such connection, and we are unable to rely upon the existence of criminal activity at the residence because of the conclusory nature of the affidavit.
B. Probable Cause
Probable cause exists when under the totality of the circumstances there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. Ordinarily, we accord great deference to a magistrate’s determination of probable cause. But deference is for doubtful cases, not affidavits devoid of facts. Respect for magistrates does not mean ratifying warrants grounded in conjecture alone. Under our precedent, we will not defer to a warrant based on an affidavit that does not provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for determining the existence of probable cause.
As the district court recognized, if the warrant and affidavit are so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable, it necessarily follows that probable cause was absent. That is precisely the case here. This search therefore violated Wilson’s Fourth Amendment rights, and suppression was proper.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30105-CR0.pdf