The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Spearman, 532 F.2d 132 (9th Cir. 1976):
In this case, direct observation connected Spearman's heroin sales only with his apartment. However, affidavits for search warrants must be interpreted in a commonsense fashion. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 745, 13 L.Ed.2d 684, 688 (1965). We believe the magistrate was justified in inferring probable cause that Spearman would also have heroin concealed in his automobile. Accordingly, we conclude that the search warrant was valid and that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.