Posted by [By Nicole Kaplan]
A fresh Fourth Circuit opinion, United States v. Griffin, 2026 WL 2357208 (4th Cir. Aug. 14, 2026), is a great case to have in our arsenal for suppression briefing. It reminds us to parse search warrants carefully and be vigilant for staleness and nexus issues. The court found both no probable cause and no good faith! Plus, the opinion includes helpful language about how weak the “high crime area” factor is.
Griffin lived in a residential area (off a Maryland state road) known locally as Kent Bottom, a dead-end dirt road with several homes at the end. Agents called it an open-air drug market and acquired a search warrant for Griffin’s home. The application described lots of visible drug activity in the area and people being stopped coming out with drugs. The warrant described four incidents from 2006 to 2018. Only the 2006 arrest was tied to the home, and only one other event even mentioned Griffin, although that event wasn’t even tied to his home. Surveillance in April 2019 showed drug activity nearby, including the side yard of Griffin’s home. And although he was present during some transactions, walking in and out of house, he did not visibly participate. In August 2019, two weeks before the warrant was issued, surveillance showed more suspected drug activity in a car parked in front of Griffin’s house.
A state judge issued a no-knock warrant for the house. The agents searched the house and, per the same warrant, a car parked on the side of the house. No drugs were found in the house. Drugs and a gun were found in the car.
The district court denied Griffin’s motion to suppress the evidence from the warrant, and found probable cause because of broader drug activity on the road as well as the prior incidents and surveillance. The jury later acquitted Griffin on drug and § 924(c) counts but convicted him of possessing the firearm as a convicted felon. He appealed.
The Fourth Circuit reversed the conviction. The panel noted the Fourth Amendment is at its apex when protecting the home. Physical entry is the chief evil against which it protects. Agents need a proper warrant to enter a home, with emphasis on proper. A proper warrant requires probable cause and must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate.
The panel found no nexus between the house and the evidence sought. There was not a fair probability that contraband or evidence would be found there. Common-sense inferences from known facts are permissible to establish probable cause but improbable leaps are not permissible. Proximity alone does not establish nexus. The agent must have facts connecting criminal activity to the residence. “The Fourth Amendment does not permit suspicion by geography.”
The warrant also had a staleness problem. Older facts don’t support probable cause without reason to believe evidence remains at the place to be searched. The only evidence tied to both Griffin and the home was 13 years old and did not result in conviction. A neighborhood’s reputation is not a substitute for facts tying evidence to a particular residence.
The court also rejected a good faith finding. Was the affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render belief in its existence entirely unreasonable? Stale facts and no nexus to the residence mean the police officer’s faith in the warrant is objectively unreasonable. Again, the only objective concrete evidence for home was from 2006. See also Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (2004).
So, be vigilant (or bee vigilant!). Parse your warrant for staleness, nexus, and every other requirement of probable cause. And good luck!
THE BLUE NOTES BLOG 