Cited by

“Police officers may rely on training and experience to draw inferences in affidavits, but mere suspicion does not equal probable cause.” Kahn, d at 18; (stating that an officer’s training and experience “can be a proper factor to consider in making a probable-cause determination”), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

This court has recognized that “viewing and possessing child pornography is, by its nature, a solitary and secretive crime” and, based on an affiant’s training and experience, “the court could reasonably draw an inference that the suspect would keep the illicit images in a place considered safe and secret, like the home.” 10 rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

A law enforcement officer’s training and personal knowledge “can be a proper factor to consider in making a probable-cause determination.” rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

I agree that a judge may “draw common- sense and reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances set forth in an affidavit.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

The nexus factors “include the nature of the crime, the nature of the items sought, the extent of the suspect’s opportunity for concealment, and the normal inferences as to where the suspect would normally keep the items.” (quotation omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

y and security of their home or vehicle.” And this court has recognized that “viewing and possessing child pornography is, by its nature, a solitary and secretive crime” and thus, based on an affiant’s training and experience, “the court could reasonably draw an inference that the suspect would keep the illicit images in a place considered safe and secret, like the home.” State v. Brennan , rev. denied (Minn. Apr.

review denied (Minn. Apr.

While revi ew of the issuing judge’s decision “is limited to the information presented in the warrant application and supporting affidavit,” Fawcett, d at 384-85, the “judge is entitled to draw common-sense and reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances set forth in an affidavit,” d 200, 204 (Minn. App. 2004) (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.

(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.

for the proposition that, in cases where a warrant has been upheld despite no direct connection between the items and the defendant’s house, “the alleged crimes were by their nature ones where the defendant was likely to keep the contraband in question inside his house.” While a theft and

“[A] police affiant’s training and experience can be a proper factor to consider in making a probable-cause determination.” ().

1(A)(4), (C).” State v. Brennan , review denied (Minn. Apr.

-07 (Minn. App. 2004) (concluding that, due to the expected use and stor age of child pornography as described in the warrant application, sufficient nexus existed to support a warrant to search the suspect’s home, even though discovery of child pornography had been limited to his work computer).

(upholding probable cause for a warrant in part because “[c]ommon sense permits an inference that such [identifying] documents would normally be found in a person’s home”); (“[T]he issuing judge [of a search warrant] is entitled to draw common-sense and reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances set forth in an affidavit.”), review denied (Minn. Apr.

review denied (Minn. Apr.

(stating that the “issuing judge is entitled to draw common-sense and reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances”).

(quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.

See id.; (“Basing his conclusions on experience, rather than merely making conclusory statements, the affiant provided evidence that contributed to the district court’s finding that a fan- probability existed....

The reviewing court recognizes that the issuing judge may “draw common-sense and reasonable inferences from the facts and circumstances set forth in an affidavit.” (quotation omitted), review denied (Minn. Apr.