United States v. David Torres, 22-2108

Law enforcement (state police, city police, and county drug task force) investigated David Torres as a suspected drug trafficker in December 2019.
A confidential informant (CI) completed two controlled buys (cocaine and heroin/fentanyl) after calling Torres; Torres was observed leaving 66 Church Street and driving directly to each meeting in a rented Nissan Altima, making no intervening stops.
The CI was checked to ensure no contraband was carried in and returned from each meeting with narcotics purchased from Torres.
Police obtained and executed a search warrant for 66 Church Street, seizing fentanyl, cocaine, marijuana, a handgun, body armor, scales, and drug-packaging/cutting materials.
Torres moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause because the deals did not occur at 66 Church Street; the District Court denied suppression, Torres pleaded guilty reserving appeal rights, was sentenced to 164 months, and appealed.

Issue	Torres' Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the search warrant for 66 Church Street was supported by probable cause	The controlled buys occurred off-premises, so there was an insufficient nexus between the alleged drug activity and 66 Church Street	Torres’s repeated departures from 66 Church Street directly to controlled buys, plus common-sense likelihood that dealers store evidence at their residence, established a sufficient nexus	Afforded magistrate substantial basis; probable cause existed and suppression denial was affirmed

United States v. Perez, 280 F.3d 318 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
United States v. Jones, 994 F.2d 1051 (3d Cir. 1993) (review limited to whether affidavit supported magistrate’s decision)
United States v. Miknevich, 638 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 2011) (probable cause is a ‘‘fair probability’’ standard; read affidavits in common-sense manner)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
United States v. Golson, 743 F.3d 44 (3d Cir. 2014) (requirement of a sufficient nexus between place searched and contraband)
United States v. Burton, 288 F.3d 91 (3d Cir. 2002) (residence possession or domicile of dealer supports nexus analysis)
United States v. Hodge, 246 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2001) (direct evidence linking place to crime not required)
United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2000) (drug dealers likely keep evidence at residence)
United States v. Stearn, 597 F.3d 540 (3d Cir. 2010) (defendants’ comings-and-goings can make a property a focal point supporting probable cause)