Establishing Probable Cause in a Search Warrant to Link the Residence to Be Searched With the Evidence to Be Seized

Last week, Jeff Welty wrote a post concerning the failure to allege in a search application that the premises to be searched is the suspect’s home, and it included a discussion of State v. Parson (N.C. App., October 18, 2016). This post supplements his post by discussing the issue of establishing probable cause to link a residence to be searched with evidence to be seized, and by adding a few other comments on Parson. Linking the residence to the evidence to be seized. Even when information is timely, it must also link the crime, the evidence to be seized, and the place to be searched. The easiest way to connect them is by direct observation. For example, if an officer’s confidential informant has recently observed drugs being sold in a particular house, the crime (possession of drugs), the evidence (drugs) to be seized, and the place (the house) to be searched have been sufficiently connected to authorize a search of the house. Normally, a sale of drugs at a place supports an inference that more drugs may be found there. See State v. Riggs, 328 N.C. 213 (1991). Direct observation is not the only way to connect the place with the crime and evidence to be seized. For example, assuming that the information is timely, court cases recognize that the proceeds from a burglary, breaking or entering, or robbery will likely be found in (1) the suspect’s home or other place where the suspect is residing or from which the suspect [...]