United States v. Ellison, 632 F.3d 347

This is a direct criminal appeal challenging the validity of a search warrant.
The warrant affidavit relied on a confidential informant’s tip about an outside-the-house cocaine transaction.
The informant described a buy outside Ellison’s Cedar Circle residence and a return of one participant into the home.
The affidavit claimed an experience-based inference that illegal activity implies contraband or evidence at the residence.
The warrant sought to search Ellison’s residence and persons on the premises; items seized included drugs, a firearm, pills, cash, and drug paraphernalia.
Ellison pleaded guilty to some counts after a suppression ruling, preserving appeal on the suppression issue; the district court denied suppression and the conviction on appeal is affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a sufficient nexus between the crime and the residence to issue the warrant?	Ellison: no nexus; insufficient connection.	Ellison: the outside-the-home drug sale and return-to-home create nexus.	Yes; sufficient nexus existed; probable cause supported the warrant.
Must the affidavit name the drug dealer or owner of the property to support a warrant?	Ellison: naming owner/dealer is required.	No; it need not identify the exact seller or owner.	No; naming is not required to establish probable cause.

United States v. Bethal, 245 F. App’x 460 (6th Cir. 2007) (supports nexus inference for residence searches)
United States v. Van Shutters, 163 F.3d 331 (6th Cir. 1998) (discusses nexus between place and evidence)
United States v. Loggins, 777 F.2d 336 (6th Cir. 1985) (probable cause standard for warrants)
United States v. McPhearson, 469 F.3d 518 (6th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes cases where residence search lacks connection to the suspect)
United States v. Pinson, 321 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirms that warrant need not name the offender)
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978) (affidavit for search warrant need not name the offender)