Can police search your home if they found a small amount of drugs in your car during a traffic stop?

The Ninth Circuit has repeatedly affirmed searches of homes of suspected drug dealers even where there is no direct evidence linking the homes to illegal activity, because the presence of evidence in a drug dealer"s home is a reasonable inference to draw. See, e.g., United States v. Fannin, 817 F.2d 1379, 1381–82 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Angulo–Lopez, 791 F.2d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Peacock, 761 F.2d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir.1985). The government argues that this caselaw can and should be extended to drug users, especially since Inspector Lau stated in his affidavit that it is “common” for drug users to have additional drugs and paraphernalia at their residences. Such an affidavit is available in every case. In effect, the government is looking for a bright-line rule that the police have probable cause to search the house of any person found with any amount of illegal drugs anywhere. This would be a significant extension of the case law, taking it beyond the bounds of what is permitted by the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit has held that “probable cause that a resident of the location has committed a crime is in itself insufficient to satisfy” the requirement that evidence probably will be found at the locations to be searched. See United States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1254 (9th Cir.2004); United States v. Gil, 58 F.3d 1414, 1418 (9th Cir.1995). Drug dealing and drug using are categorically different crimes. To extend the exception in Fannin and Angulo–Lopez is to eviscerate the rule stated in Fernandez and Gil. See United States v. Lucarz, 430 F.2d 1051, 1055 (9th Cir.1970) (explaining that if mere probable cause to arrest a suspect also established probable cause to search the suspect"s home, there would be no reason to distinguish search warrants from arrest warrants). The search warrant in this case was facially invalid. Read the full case here: United States v. Garcia, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (N.D. Cal. 2011), https://casetext.com/case/us-v-garcia-335 Anton Vialtsin, Esq. LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law https://lawstache.com (619) 357-6677 Do you want to buy our Lawstache merchandise? Maybe a t-shirt? https://lawstache.com/merch/ Want to mail me something (usually mustache related)? Send it to 185 West F Street, Suite 100-D, San Diego, CA 92101 Want to learn about our recent victories? https://lawstache.com/results-notable-cases/ If you"d like to support this channel, please consider purchasing some of the following products. We get a little kickback, and it does NOT cost you anything extra: *Calvin Klein Men"s Dress Shirt Slim Fit Non-iron, https://amzn.to/3zm6mkf *Calvin Klein Men"s Slim Fit Dress Pant, https://amzn.to/3G8jLQG *Johnson and Murphy Shoes, https://amzn.to/3KmfX0Y *Harley-Davidson Men"s Eagle Piston Long Sleeve Crew Shirt, https://amzn.to/43gFtMC *Amazon Basics Tank Style Highlighters, https://amzn.to/3zwOEKZ *Pilot Varsity Disposable Fountain Pens, https://amzn.to/40EjSfm *Apple 2023 Mac Mini Desktop Computer, https://amzn.to/3Km2aGC *ClearSpace Plastic Storage Bins, https://amzn.to/3Kzle5q Are you are a Russian speaker? Вы говорите по-русски? https://russiansandiegoattorney.com Based in San Diego, CA Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are e...