Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
In September 2019, a confidential informant notified a Denver police detective that someone named Trey was selling methamphetamine from his apartment in south Denver. The tipster, who the officer described as previously reliable, said they purchased methamphetamine “in the past” from Trey’s apartment and had observed firearms and drugs inside his residence “during the past six months.”
Further investigation revealed the identity of “Trey” to be Samuel Windom. Authorities successfully arranged a controlled buy to corroborate the information, at which Windom was observed selling methamphetamine to a confidential informant. After an affidavit was submitted to support the search of Windom’s residence, a warrant was issued. During a search of Windom’s home in December 2019, 78 grams of methamphetamine and two semi-automatic guns were found. Windom admitted to police that he owned both guns and had previously sold methamphetamine.
Windom was charged with possession of a gun by a previously convicted felon and knowingly and intentionally possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute and knowingly using and carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime.
Prior to trial, Windom moved to suppress the evidence recovered during the search of his apartment. He argued the warrant failed to establish probable cause because it didn’t prove a sufficient nexus between the purported drug sales and his residence and the information the informant provided was several months old and stale. In turn, Windom asserted the affidavit was lacking in probable cause.
Windom requested an evidentiary hearing on the issue of suppression, which the district court denied on the grounds that his motion didn’t raise any material factual dispute.
The district court denied Windom’s motion to suppress. It determined the informant’s tip wasn’t stale because it showed ongoing drug activity and was corroborated by the controlled buy. The district court also concluded an appropriate nexus was formed by an investigation linking Windom to the apartment and the informant’s implication of his residence. A jury found Windom guilty on the first two counts of the superseding indictment.
On appeal, Windom argued the district court erred in denying a hearing on the motion to suppress and renewed his probable cause challenge.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the district court didn’t abuse its discretion by forgoing a suppression hearing and affirmed the district court’s rulings that neither staleness nor lack of nexus undermined the probable cause supporting a search of Windom’s home.