Cited by

See Yarbrough, d at 622 ( stating that “direct observation of evidence of a crime at the place to be searched is not required” and “nexus may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances” based on the facts in the warrant affidavit); (determining that a “magistrate was justified in issuing [a search] warrant” based on “all the information contained in the [warrant] affidavit and reasonable inferences therefrom”).

But the supreme court has also acknowledged that, “under certain circumstances, it may be permissible for a magistrate to infer that drugs would be found in the home of a ‘drug wholesaler.’” Harris, d at 789 (quoting Souto, d at 748) ().

see Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 564–65, 568 (1971).

at 623 ( -33 (Minn. 1984)).

See (stating that a person who deals large quantities of drugs is likely to store drugs at their residence); (stating that it is reasonable to infer that one who sells drugs from their automobile would keep a supply of drugs at their residence, es

at 623; -33 (Minn. 1984) (stating there may be an “increased .

The state argues the district court erred when it determined that the affidavit failed to establish that J.R. was a “drug wholesaler.” The Minnesota Supreme Court has created a distinction between a casual drug user and a “drug wholesaler.” -33 (Minn. 1984).

d 830, 832-33 (Minn. 1984).

was “in route from [Frisbie’s] residence —or at least still nearby the residence —at the time [he] was stopped by law enforcement.” 2 She argues, therefore, that the warrant failed to include in formation that would contradict “inferences in the affidavit,” and “reasonably lead a reader to infer something that the affiant knew not to be true.” -33 (Minn. 1984) (providing that a failure to include information that would contradict “inferences in the affidavit .

because someone had stolen ‘a large amount of crack cocaine from him ’”); (determining that there was a sufficient nexus where the affidavit established that the defendant was “involved in the drug business as a wholesaler, that he lived in a residence in Austin, that he had two cars, and that after arranging on the telephone to sell a large amount of marijuana to an un

See, d 830, 833 (Minn. 1984) (concluding that, “considering all the information contained in the affidavit and reasonable inferences therefrom,” the issuing magistrate was justified in finding probable cause to search an established marijuana dealer’s home for marijuana).

n.2 (Minn. 1998); -33 (Minn. 1984).

Regarding drug evidence, we have drawn a distinction between a “drug wholesaler” and a “casual user.” See Harris, d at 789 ; -33 (Minn.1984).

-33 (Minn.1984) (affidavit supported inference that marijuana would be found in appellant’s residence following sale that did not take place at that house, where there was no evidence that appellant stored marijuana elsewhere or obtained it from others before making sale).

We did not dispute that, under certain circumstances, it may be permissible for a magistrate to infer that drugs would be found in the home of a “drug wholesaler.” Id at 748

-833 (Minn.1984) (affidavit supported inference that marijuana would be found in appellant’s residence following sale that did not take place at that house, where there was no evidence that appellant stored marijuana elsewhere or obtained it from others before making sale).

(citing Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560 , 91 S.Ct.

The evidence of probable cause to believe that items will be found in a which cites prior cases of this court dealing with the same issue.

The issue of probable cause to believe that items will be found in a