#or after seeing Orin as one of the impersonators

[trappedinafantasy37]

POV: Your evil murder kitten's mask has slipped and you can see how deep she is drowning in fear and paranoia.

[fanfiction-artist-prototype]

favourite act 3 dialogues so far, a collection

(i love this mainly bc im like. ah. the 'looking back after killing cazador as a spawn and realising you were acting not dissimilarly to the man you hate so much and that you could have become just like him all over again if you'd gone through with it' is just delicious)

Lae'zel is just so tired, she's really going 'for fuck sake we have withers, a selunite demigod and her wife, scratch and the owl bear. must we take in *more?*'

CASSANDRA! YOU'VE KNOWN YOU WERE A CHILD OF BHAAL FOR A FUCKING DAY! STOP TRYING TO TELL EVERYONE! ALSO??? Babes im trying to redeem you so hard why are you making it so difficult for me to *not* pick 'recently unemployed, i quite like murders?' bc your intelligence stats make that so in-character

--

(honorary bloodweave 'and they were bunkmates' setup)

--

(back to quotes)

(i love Orin. I love the relationship she has with Durge. She'll kill them, want them dead and to take over their life from their position in life to their room to *everything* that could be them because she needs to know what made her the lesser choice; why did Bhaal have to *make* another bhaalspawn when she was right there?

But it's the inflection when she says he's been whispering in their ears; it's the anger, the indignity. I like to take it not as a 'you are shameful for falling for it' even though she obviously references that he could twist them when they had their memories, i take it as aimed *at* Gortash. He's taken her sibling, her rival, and twisted them against what Father wanted to the point she found she had to and then was able to usurp them! And then, then he dares to take advantage of their amnesia and try and turn them against Bhaal once again. Anyway. Love this gal, she's a hoot.)

(also i forgot to screenshot but what do you MEAN Orin thought that the best way to impersonate Gale (who i had be the companion who got taken from camp - which i immediately reloaded to avoid bc im trying to do stuff for his character quest rn damnnit and it isn't time to go straight to the temple!) was to imply he ran away and that she castrated him??? that's so funny)

(Orin being described as a sulky child has got the brainworms (ha!) wriggling ngl)

(also it's always lae'zel. she's at max approval each time as well!! like couldn't it be Yenna or smthing? like have a whole 'look at the murder-kin thinking it can *protect* life? Trying to make up for all those you've cut shorter than this one?? Also i kind of need Lae'zel for heavy hitter stuff as well but we can push through for now!)

(Us in general is my fave part of this game. What do you mean that technically to the outside world my durge looks like she's wandering around with a dog, a cute kitten/cat and a raven (from the He Who Was reward gloves) trailing after her!? AHHH.)

DENIAL IS A RIVER IN EGYPT-

Durge why are you like this.

Is there truly anything bouncing between their tadpoles that isn't some form of sarcastic comment?

WHEN I TELL YOU I WAS KICKING MY FEET AND GIGGLING.

Like. Durge. this is so funny, you've known you were a bhaalspawn for like a *week* what do you MEAN you've already figured out appropriate blasphemes?"

THIS LINE RIGHT HERE IS WHAT INSPIRED MY ENTIRE FUCKING TAKE ON DURGE IN SCION ON SCION VIOLENCE. THIS IS THE FOUNDATION FOR MY INTERPRETATION OF 'THE URGES'

Literally i am not kidding when I say this is one of my fave lines. The context, of Karlach seeing her friend (maybe even her best friend, her fucking *sibling* in all but blood) getting to fix themselves, getting to choose to live knowing she can't, she's fucked it isn't going to work. And yet, she can only be proud. Makes everything hurt so bad-

*stares in that one playthrough where i didn't realise letting her kill the nightsong was her bad route and was like 'yeah lets let her become a justiciar* Yeah babes. It'd be a real shame wouldn't it. (also love her just as much as Karlach, like parallels)

look. I'm an astarion simp through and through and I DO NOT CARE THIS LINE GETS ME EACH TIME!! He's like. This is great and all but since we're not questioning what the fuck withers is im going to focus on the sickening sweetness and BLEH too much. Too much emotional trauma yet to be resolved this is a little nauseating ' i love him. so much.

[isobel-thorm]

WIP Thursday

Tagged by @euryalex Tagging: @shallow-gravy @socially-awkward-skeleton @captastra

BG3 and Outer Worlds nonsense below the cut bc writing bug is back with a vengeance and I cannot keep up

BG3:

Reina stared at the boy, and it suddenly occurred to her that she had no idea what to do or how to react. She had been so sure, she had come to this mansion- this prison for this reason, and now here she was, choking at the last second.  Luckily, she didn’t have long to choke, because Thomas settled the indecision for her. He was immediately in tears and he practically flew across the impossibly large room before he wrapped himself around her. “You’re home! I was so frightened! Dad-Dad-Dad said you were sick for a long time and he wouldn’t let me see you-”  She wondered briefly it was just part of Gortash’s manipulation there- but whose benefit was it for? And sick? Was he referring to the tadpole? Had he even been referring to her? Or deep under all the power-hungry nonsense was there still some sort of concerned father under all of that?

‘- He-he-he said you were real sick, an’ couldn’t- it made you very mean, and you were scaring people and he didn’t want you to hurt me-”  Orin it was. She must’ve been around impersonating Reina and Gortash had told him to steer clear for his safety. Something in her stomach turned. Bastard went and sold one surrogate daughter to Zariel without care, but kept his own flesh and blood safe from an equal threat. She hated that it made her conflicted all over again- to a certain extent, of course. Karlach and her now had a bond that no one could sever, she couldn’t forgive Gortash for doing that to her. And now she couldn’t forgive herself for standing by and letting it happen those years ago. Still, he kept her boy safe. And now she had sealed the deal by putting Orin down. She bent to hold him properly. “I’m better now, don’t worry. I’m not gonna hurt you or anyone.”  “Promise?”  Her heart lurched again at the hopeful look he gave her. “Promise.” Protectiveness settled back into her chest and once again, it felt like something had clicked back into place. This was her boy. She’d move mountains for him, hell, even kill for him if necessary. And suddenly a lot more made sense. He wasn’t much older than Mirkon and Arabella, so that explained how fierce she had been in their defense. She had made up her mind quickly about Kagha after she threatened Arabella, and the Shadow Druid ordeal had just been a convenient excuse. She had barely left Mirkon’s side with her group when they escorted him back, and then had felt such pride when he gave her the story he’d written shortly after. With Mol, she had some complicated feelings of pride there, too, and when they reunited at the Inn she had heard Raphael’s voice following Mol’s and had nearly yanked the door between her and the voices clean off its hinges in her haste to stop whatever meddling the Devil had been up to and rigged the game for Mol to win. Raphael’s look of disdain had melted to something of sheer arrogance, and now she wondered if he knew all along that she was like that because she had a son back home. For the faintest moment she wondered if he himself was the devil that had raised Gortash and their whole ordeal was just family drama.

Outer Worlds

The Cap- Vex hadn't changed much since he had last seen her. She had apparently grown out her hair. Gone was the mess of teal pinned up with a couple of bobby pins, replaced by sandy brown waves. She still had the edges dyed green, probably fresh for the wedding. Her face was softer, too. Amazing what no longer having the weight of the world on your shoulders could do. He instinctively pressed closer when she looped her arm around his shoulders, enthusiastically talking to Ellie about something. Law, he had missed her. So badly. Max glanced across the table at Felix, Parvati and Nyota were staring back at him. Parvati was looking between him and Vex dreamily, and Felix and Nyota were smirking at him. He made a face at them, and both of their smirks merely widened.

[twinfoxtails]

@parasundered​​

"... Today really is the day."

It still felt like not long ago when Eri knew of Harune's condition from Lust. He wanted to help her, and he wanted to immediately run in and save her. But...

It's not like last time, where Meiling and Miko showed you all the steps forward, or Prime and others guiding you. This is even bigger.

He can't hide behind others anymore for this one. Not that he wanted to at this situation, of course. It was something extremely personal to him, and something he'd rather do with his own, two hands.

... You need to come up with a plan, with a solution. You need to meet some people, and maybe they’ll help you figure it all out. But no going to see the beast till then.

“And now...”

And now, they finally have one, after meeting with Gluttony and Hope. A plan. A plan which was easier said than done, but the boy has been practicing what he could for this very moment.

...

He has stayed up all night for a couple of days catching up on what he knows about possession to the point where he hasn't been running the cafe often. He asked Orin and Yuri, his mom, to act as training partners, although the latter scoffs at how lacking he was, but at least he has made a bit of progress compared to before.

Immobilize the Feral Harune, and not taking over... Yuri mocked him that he couldn't even immobilized if he tried at his level, so he kept training until he was able to fully control her.

"But... your friend is an uncontrollable nine-tailed kitsune, isn't she? I'm a six-tailed, so you'd need more than that if you're up against an additional three tails, with a side of ferocity. Much, much more than that. Just don’t get yourself killed. No one’s going to bury you for something so stupid."

"..."

Unlike his usual green dress, he's wearing an outfit similar to Jeanne's old daughters, like Lust's and Envy’s, which he tailored specifically for himself. But it wasn't for impersonation sake, very far from it. It was because of the terrain which was explained by the two new androids, and how he was expected to walk on foot, and... well, he wanted to be more prepared compared to his previous space adventure. Basically, tracking gear made for long walks, with new shoes too.

Also, he may feel a little bit left out after standing around with the others in the meeting a little. Just a little.

“Right, here goes...”

Taking a deep breath, he knocked at the door where Lust and Prime are, and waited for them to open the door.

"Miss Lust, Miss Prime, I'm... I'm ready. Ready whenever you two are, that is."

Hah, the boy isn't even ready himself, he's nervous. EXTREMELY nervous.

He's not bringing any weapons, of course. He's not going to harm her, if possible.

[bluebird167]

Little Shop of Horrors AU

Based on the musical and the 1960 film.

Seymour - Natsu

Audrey - Lucy

Mr. Mushnik - Hades

Orin - Loke

Audrey 2 - An evil plant of some sort

Greek chorus group - Gray and Juvia

Gray and his girlfriend Juvia have recovered from a traumatic event they witnessed that almost destroyed the human race. When questioned by a reporter they decide to tell the story.

Their story goes back to a year earlier and it start's with Gray's best friend Natsu a poor young man who works at a flower shop and spends every day being harassed by people, abused by his boss Precht Gaeblog, and the only people who are nice to him is Gray, Juvia, and his co worker Lucy who he's secretly in love with.

One day his greedy boss threatens to have him fired to make cut backs since business is so slow. That is until he finds a strange and interesting Venus fly trap plant. The plant brings in plenty of customers but there's one problem. Unknown to anyone except Natsu, the plant needs blood to survive so to keep the plant alive Natsu cuts his finger and feeds his blood to the plant causing him to be anemic. Gray suspects something's wrong and questions him about it. He soon finds out the plant's secret and insists that Natsu stop feeding it as it is a danger to his health but Natsu having become famous refuses and convinces Gray to keep quiet about it.

When Natsu's health starts to take a bad turn he stops feeding the plant but then it starts talking to him and demands to be fed, promising him anything he wants in return. Meanwhile Lucy is in an abusive relationship with Loke a sadistic and vain man who's obsessed with his looks. Juvia who is her friend, tries to convince her to leave him but Lucy is too afraid to do so and she reveals to Juvia that she secretly loves Natsu and dreams of one day living a simple and happy life with him but makes her promise not to tell because she doesn't think she deserves him.

One night Natsu witnesses Loke beating Lucy which enrages him. The plant convinces him to feed Loke to him to keep him from hurting Lucy any further. Natsu meets Loke somewhere late one night with the intention of shooting him but he can't bring himself to do it however Loke drinks a special dietary drink that had eggs mixed into it which he is highly allergic to and he neglected to read the ingredients on the bottle.

As his throat closes up, he begs Natsu to get him his epipen but he doesn't and Loke suffocates to death. Natsu chops up his dead body and feeds it to the plant. The plant to continues to grow as does Natsu's success and with Loke gone he and Lucy start dating but Precht after hearing the police found Natsu's scarf at the scene of the crime, he suspect's that his employee had something to do with Loke's disappearance. His suspicions are confirmed when he sees Natsu and Lucy kiss, finds blood stains on the floor of his shop, and hears from Gray that Natsu was meeting Loke the night of his disappearance. He confronts Natsu about it and threatens to tell the police.

The plant tells Natsu to get rid of Precht or he'll lose Lucy so Natsu tricks his boss into being eaten by the plant. Afterward Natsu becomes very successful and continues to grow closer with Lucy but suffers from intense guilt and stress from the murders which doesn't go unnoticed by Gray, Juvia, or Lucy. One night when Natsu is asleep the plant calls Juvia and impersonates him asking for help. She goes to the shop but the plant tries to eat her luckily Gray walks by the shop, sees what's happening, and manages to save her in time. When Natsu wakes up Gray and Juvia confront him about the plant and he comes clean about everything. They both beg him to destroy the plant to which he considers but refuses believing it's the only thing winning Lucy's love.

Realizing that they can't get through to Natsu and fearing for their safety, the couple decides to leave town. Juvia worried for Lucy, tries to warn her friend before they leave but Lucy doesn't believe her however she is concerned about Natsu who at the moment is being harassed by the plant as it squals for blood. Lucy walks in on Natsu hysterically threatening to destroy the plant which deepens her worry for him. She slaps some sense into him and when he asks if she would still love him even without his success she replies that she has always loved him. Learning this he decides to kill the plant after he collects the shop's earnings from the bank tomorrow and elope with Lucy who he rushes home.

Shortly after the plant demands to be fed, Natsu agrees to feed him but insists that it be meat from a butcher. He leaves the shop but Lucy worried for him goes to the shop to check on him. The plant reveals that it can speak to Lucy and begs for water. Not sensing danger she agrees but when she gets close enough the plant pull her into it mouth and proceeds to eat her. Natsu returns and manages to pull her out before she's swallowed but she is mortally wounded and before she dies asks Natsu to feed her to it so they can be together. He reluctantly feeds her body to the plant and nearly commits suicide but is stopped by Gray and Juvia who returned to tell him that a gardening company plans to have cuttings of the plant sold worldwide.

Realizing the plant's plan for world domination, Natsu decides that it has to die. He tries shooting it, poisoning it, and cutting it but nothing works. Finally he grabs a machete, goes inside the plant, and begins to hack it's insides to bits. The plant dies from it's internal wounds but not before it eats Natsu. The next day Gray and Juvia visit the shop to search for Natsu but instead they find the plant dead and four flowers resembling Loke, Precht, Lucy, and Natsu who just before they wilt away tell them to get rid of the plant's remains to keep it from regrowing. Gray and Juvia then end their story saying that they burned the plant's remains however they're not sure if there are others like it out there and if they are they warn everyone to: Don't feed the plants.

[benrleeusa]

[Orin Kerr] Peffer v. Stephens, on Probable Cause and Home Computer Searches

On Thursday, the Sixth Circuit decided a Fourth Amendment case that is drawing a lot of criticism online. The case, Peffer v. Stephens, is authored by a new and somewhat controversial Trump appointee, John K. Bush. A few people have asked me to take a look at the case, wondering if it's as crazy and extreme as some (okay, Slate's Mark Stern) say.

My tentative take: I think the court reached out to answer a big question it didn't have to answer. I'm skeptical that the court was right to paint with such a broad brush. With that said, I don't think the decision is as far-reaching or harmful as others seem to think, in part because I suspect future courts will limit it to its facts.

I. The Facts

This case is a civil suit challenging whether there was probable cause to issue a search warrant. The police suspected that evidence of impersonating an officer and witness intimidation would be found in Peffer's house, and they obtained a warrant to search Peffer's house for that evidence. Specifically, the police suspected that Peffer had authored a letter and a flier that was evidence of the suspected crimes, and they obtained a warrant to search for and seize records relating to the crimes including in electronic form. The warrant then says that in the course of searching for those items, the government may seize and then search any computers that might store the records in electronic form.

The officers executed the warrant and took away a bunch of computers. In the end, though, prosecutors declined to prosecute Peffer. Peffer and his wife filed a civil suit, claiming (among other things not relevant here) that the warrant lacked probable cause. In particular, the Peffers mainly argued that the affidavit did not establish probable cause that evidence of the crime would be in the house for two reasons. First, the affidavit did not provide reason to beileve that the evidence described was evidence of a crime based on then-existing state law. And second, the affidavit did not make the case that the evidence described would be found in the home.

II. The Sixth Circuit's Opinion

Judge Bush's opinion treats those two arguments separately. First, the opinion rules that it was not clearly established that that the letters were not evidence of a crime. As a result, the officer "would be protected by qualified immunity from liability for executing an otherwise valid search warrant seeking evidence that Mr. Peffer violated those criminal statutes."

Next, the opinion rules that there was probable cause to believe that the evidence described would be in the house. Much (but not all) of the argument, Judge Bush says, was based on the claim "that no assertion was made that Mr. Peffer owned either a computer or a printer or, if he did, that he kept those items at the . . . residence" that was searched. The affidavit argued that the letters and fliers were computer-generated, and likely written by Peffer, and therefore that there was probable cause to find evidence about them in the Peffer house. According to the Peffers, though, there was no reason to think that Mr. Peffer had a computer at home that stored the evidence.

Judge Bush rejected the Peffers' argument. This is the passage that has generated a lot of controversy, so I will present it in full with the footnoted material in brackets:

It appears to be a question of first impression in this circuit whether the nature of a computer is such that its use in a crime is alone sufficient to justify an inference that, because of "the nature of the things to be seized," ibid., evidence of the crime is likely to be found in the alleged criminal's residence. But this question is not a difficult one to answer based on basic principles.

As a general rule, it is reasonable, ceteris paribus, to assume that a person keeps his possessions where he resides. [FN9: See, e.g., United States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d 940, 946 (7th Cir. 2010) ("When probable cause exists to believe an individual has committed a crime involving physical evidence, and when there is no articulable, non-speculative reason to believe that evidence of that crime was not or could not have been hidden in that individual's home, a magistrate will generally be justified in finding probable cause to search that individual's home.")].This presumption is of course rebuttable and cannot always be relied upon by a magistrate in finding a nexus between the object used in a crime and the alleged criminal's residence, because the "totality of circumstances presented" in the affidavit may suggest that the object is more likely to be found elsewhere or nowhere at all. Brown, 828 F.3d at 382. The affidavit may, for example, include evidence suggesting that the object was not owned by the alleged criminal; that it was discarded, sold, or was otherwise disposed of; that the alleged criminal, while retaining possession of the object, stores it elsewhere than his residence; or that the object no longer exists.

If an affidavit presents probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by means of an object, however, a magistrate may presume that there is a nexus between that object and the suspect's current residence, unless the affidavit contains facts that may rebut that presumption. [FN10: As with all findings of probable cause, this presumption is subject to a staleness analysis. The Peffers did not argue that any probable cause established in the affidavit had gone stale.]

And although we have not articulated this presumption in precisely this manner, it underlies our previous decisions in cases analyzing the connection between the objects used in a crime and the alleged criminal's residence. Our jurisprudence in this area has not always been as clear as one might hope, but an analysis of several of our nexus-jurisprudence tributaries shows that it is not as muddled as one might fear.

When it comes to guns, because we "have acknowledged that individuals who own guns keep them at their homes," United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 473, 480 (6th Cir. 1999), a suspect's use of a gun in the commission of a crime is sufficient to find a nexus between the gun that was used and the suspect's residence. For example, in United States v. Vanderweele, an informant told an ATF agent that he had seen Vanderweele in possession of a silencer at a clubhouse. 545 Fed.Appx. 465, 467 (6th Cir. 2013). The agent sought a search warrant for Vanderweele's residence based on nothing more than the informant's statement that Vanderweele had been in possession of a silencer and his awareness, "based on his training and experience, 'that firearms, ammunition, and related items are commonly stored within the owner or possessor's dwelling.' " Id. at 469. We held that based on these alleged facts, "[t]he magistrate judge had reason to believe that the silencer would be found at Vanderweele's house," and we upheld the warrant. Ibid.

This is consistent with our holdings in similar cases. [FN 11: It is also consistent with the approach taken by many, but not all, of our sister circuits. United States v. Anderson, 851 F.2d 727, 729 (4th Cir. 1988) ("It was reasonable for the magistrate to believe that the defendant's gun and the silencer would be found in his residence ... even though the affidavit contained no facts that the weapons were located in defendant's trailer."); United States v. Steeves, 525 F.2d 33, 38 (8th Cir. 1975) (upholding a warrant on the basis that "people who own pistols generally keep them at home or on their persons"); United States v. Rahn, 511 F.2d 290, 293–94 (10th Cir. 1975) (upholding a warrant because "it is reasonable to assume that [defendant's] house was where he kept things and it is pretty normal ... for individuals to keep weapons in their homes"); Bastida v. Henderson, 487 F.2d 860, 863 (5th Cir. 1973) (upholding a warrant because a "reliable informant stated that on the day after the robbery [Defendants] were still armed with automatic pistols" and "[a] very likely place to find them thereafter would either be on the persons of the assailants or about the premises where they lived"). But see United States v. Charest, 602 F.2d 1015, 1017 (1st Cir. 1979) (invalidating a warrant because there was "nothing in the affidavit from which a factual finding could be made that the gun used in the shooting was probably located at defendant's premises" and "[c]ommon sense tells us that it is unlikely that a murderer would hide in his own home a gun used to shoot someone").] See, e.g., United States v. Goodwin, 552 Fed.Appx. 541, 546 (6th Cir. 2014)(upholding a warrant to search illegal-gun purchaser's residence where an affidavit established that the gun sought was valuable and that "owners usually keep machine guns in their homes"); United States v. Cobb, 397 Fed.Appx. 128, 133 (6th Cir. 2010) (upholding a warrant to search bank robber's residence for the clothing and gun he had used during a robbery because the "reasonable inference is that this clothing and gun likely would have been in [defendant's] possession six weeks following the final robbery"). [FN12: This area of our jurisprudence is admittedly murky. In United States v. Bethal, the panel declined to find a nexus between the gun the defendant used in a shooting and his residence, despite the affidavit's asserting that the defendant had been "identified as one of the drive-by shooters." 245 Fed.Appx. 460, 469 (6th Cir. 2007). Over a dissent, the panel reasoned that because "persons accused of murders often dispose of the guns utilized in the crime soon afterward" and "the affidavit ... provided no indication that at the time of the search, [Defendant] was still participating in gang-related shootings, or was seen carrying a gun," the affidavit failed "to establish any relationship between [Defendant]'s residence and the fair probability that weapons and drugs would be found there." Id. at 468–69. We question Bethal's emphasis on ongoing criminal conduct and are not bound by this unreported decision. See United States v. Ennenga, 263 F.3d 499, 504 (6th Cir. 2001) ("We need not concern ourselves with any perceived inconsistency, however, because [inconsistent case] is an unpublished case and therefore not a controlling precedent.").]

It is clear that the use of a gun in the commission of a crime is sufficient to establish a nexus between the suspected criminal's gun and his residence. Computers are dissimilar to guns in many ways, including the nature of the crimes in which they are used and the relative ease with which guns can be transported and discarded. Computers are similar to guns, however, in that they are both personal possessions often kept in their owner's residence and therefore subject to the presumption that a nexus exists between an object used in a crime and the suspect's current residence. This is borne out by our cases involving the consumption of child pornography via computer.

Although we have never been asked to pass judgment on a magistrate's finding of a nexus between the computer used to consume child pornography and the alleged consumer's residence based on nothing more than the use of the computer, we have placed our imprimatur on a number of search warrants issued based on affidavits with scant evidence supporting a nexus beyond the use of a computer. See, e.g., United States v. Elbe, 774 F.3d 885, 890 (6th Cir. 2014) (finding that affidavit established nexus because the suspect's residence had high-speed internet and the suspect had been observed using a laptop on his front porch); United States v. Lapsins, 570 F.3d 758, 766 (6th Cir. 2009) (finding that affidavit established nexus because the IP address used to distribute prohibited material was accessed by a residential modem located in the general vicinity of suspect's residence and that suspect had participated in an online chat regarding prohibited material between the hours of 6:30 and 8:30 a.m., when suspect would be at home); United States v. Terry, 522 F.3d 645, 648 (6th Cir. 2008) (finding nexus because affidavit established that the suspect had a computer at his residence and had sent an email containing prohibited material at approximately 2:30 a.m.).

Just as guns, and other possessions, are generally kept in the home, so too are computers, and so we readily find a nexus between computers used in the consumption of child pornography and the suspected consumer's residence.

The principle that we are now articulating also explains why we are more reticent to find a nexus between drugs and their distributor's residences. In Brown, the defendant was apprehended leaving the location of a sale of more than 500 grams of heroin, and was found to be in possession of $4,813 in currency. 828 F.3d at 378–80. Responding to the Government's argument that "the magistrate judge was entitled to infer that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at Brown's residence because he was a known drug dealer," we pointed out that "we have never held ... that a suspect's status as a drug dealer, standing alone, gives rise to a fair probability that drugs will be found in his home." Brown, 828 F.3d at 383. Recognizing that "[i]n the case of drug dealers, evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live," we nevertheless held that "if the affidavit fails to include facts that directly connect the residence with the suspected drug dealing activity, or the evidence of this connection is unreliable, it cannot be inferred that drugs will be found in the defendant's home—even if the defendant is a known drug dealer." Id. at 383–84.

This is because, unlike guns and computers that are used in the commission of a crime, when drugs are used in the commission of a distribution offense, the distributed drugs are no longer in the possession of the suspected distributor. The affidavit therefore must establish some other reason to believe that drugs or other evidence of crime would be found in the suspect's residence if searched. See, e.g., United States v. Raglin, 663 Fed.Appx. 409, 411–12 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding nexus because affidavit established that a suspect drove to the defendant's house directly after trafficking drugs, at which point $38,000 appeared in a purse on the roof and the defendant's girlfriend told officers that guns were in the house); United States v. Kenny, 505 F.3d 458, 461 (6th Cir. 2007) (finding probable cause because affidavit established that an informant identified the defendant as the "cook" of a large ongoing trafficking operation that was taking place on his property, which was corroborated by independent evidence); United States v. Newton, 389 F.3d 631, 636 (6th Cir. 2004) (explaining that affidavit established that defendant was engaged in a "continual and ongoing" drug distribution scheme), rev'd on other grounds, 546 U.S. 803, 126 S.Ct. 280, 163 L.Ed.2d 35 (2005); United States v. Jones, 159 F.3d 969, 974 (6th Cir. 1998) (finding that affidavit established that defendant was seen distributing narcotics directly outside of his domicile). Unlike drugs, guns and computers are objects that generally remain in the suspect's possession after commission of the crime, and therefore it is reasonable to believe those possessions to be stored at the suspect's residence, absent evidence to the contrary.

Here, the affidavit included allegations that Mr. Peffer had used a computer in the commission of his crime, that evidence of the crime would likely be found on that computer, and that Mr. Peffer resided at the Bierri Road residence, thereby establishing a presumption that evidence of the crime would be found at the Bierri Road residence. That the affidavit did not allege that Mr. Peffer owned a computer or that he kept one at the Bierri Road residence is immaterial, because the averment that he used one in the commission of a crime is sufficient to create the presumption that it would be found at his residence. See e.g., Vanderweele, 545 Fed.Appx. at 469. The affidavit did not suggest any reason to believe that Mr. Peffer had used a computer that did not belong to him, that he had thrown out or otherwise disposed of the computer, or that he kept the computer elsewhere. Indeed, the affidavit did not suggest any reason to believe that the computer used in the commission of the crime would not be found at the Bierri Road residence, and therefore the only reasonable conclusion that a jury could draw is that a nexus existed between the evidence sought and the Bierri Road residence.

Because Sergeant Stephens executed a valid warrant supported by probable cause as to a connection between the mailings and the Bierri Road residence, when he searched that house, there was no Fourth Amendment violation on this ground.

III. My Analysis

Here are some tentative thoughts.

First, I'm not sure it works to treat the Peffers' two probable cause arguments separately. The Peffers claimed that the warrant was defective because the conduct wasn't evidence of a crime and because that evidence wasn't going to be in the home. Judge Bush treats those as two separate claims. He first disposes of the scope-of-crime claim on qualified immunity grounds, and he then takes on the claim that the evidence wasn't sufficiently likely to be there. But I'm not sure they can be separated. Probable cause has to be assessed all at once, I would think. The question is, overall, whether evidence of crime is likely to be in the place to be searched. If it's not clear that the conduct alleged is a crime, then I would think that discounts the odds that there are evidence of crime in the place to be searched. Off the top of my head I can't think of cases where that issue has come up. But that's my instinct, at least.

Of course, the bigger controversy over the Peffer case is about the court's apparent conclusion that "the nature of a computer is such that its use in a crime is alone sufficient to justify an inference that, because of the nature of the things to be seized, evidence of the crime is likely to be found in the alleged criminal's residence." What about that?

Here are three thoughts about that in particular. First, skimming over the briefs, I am somewhat perplexed as to why the court tried to paint with such a broad brush. Here's the opening Peffer brief; here's the officer's brief; and here's the reply. I only skimmed them, so maybe I'm missing something. If so, I apologize. But based on my quick read, I don't see how they asked the court to take a position on whether computer-generated evidence is likely to be at a suspect's home. So one way this passage is odd is that it's not clear the parties really briefed it and the court had to reach it.

Second, I'm skeptical that it works to paint with such a broad brush as the court did. The category of "computers" and "computer-stored evidence" seems just too broad. In a world of global computer networks and the cloud, with many (most?) people having different electronic devices in different places used in different ways, it's hard to generalize about where computer-stored evidence is likely to be.

In this case, for example, the court was dealing with letters and fliers that presumably were generated with some kind of word processing software. I think it's probably the case these days that if someone is creating fake letters and fliers as part of criminal activity, and they're just regular computer users with no obvious sophistication, they're probably just doing it on a home computer. The home computer probably generated copies of the documents, either as automatic backups or maybe as a version saved by the user, that are there in some form on the machines. Probably.

But I think the point is about the specific kind of document, perhaps generated by someone with no computer sophistication. It's not about the fact that it was generated on a computer generally. If you change the nature of the document -- make it, say, a threatening text message that is more likely to be on a phone the suspect carries around than on a computer always at home -- then the odds change about where it could be stored. If you change what we know about the user -- say, make him very technically sophisticated -- the odds change again.

Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if future courts tend to limit Peffer to its facts. The likelihood that using a computer to commit a crime means that evidence of the crime will be found in a computer inside the person's home at some future point just seems too fact-dependent to justify a broad generalization of the answer. The nature of the probable cause determination calls for a more fact-specific holding, it seems to me.

Third, I think there's some interesting tension between Judge Bush's ruling and Judge Srinivasan's ruling for the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Griffith opened:

Most of us nowadays carry a cell phone. And our phones frequently contain information chronicling our daily lives—where we go, whom we see, what we say to our friends, and the like. When a person is suspected of a crime, his phone thus can serve as a fruitful source of evidence, especially if he committed the offense in concert with others with whom he might communicate about it. Does this mean that, whenever officers have reason to suspect a person of involvement in a crime, they have probable cause to search his home for cell phones because he might own one and it might contain relevant evidence? That, in essence, is the central issue raised by this case.

Judge Srinivasan's opinion isn't in direct contrast with Judge Bush's, but it is skeptical about presuming that a computer is in a home. Srinivasan's opinion demands more evidence, both that a person has a device and that the device still is likely to have evidence on it. It's an interesting contrast with Judge Bush's opinion. I wouldn't be surpised if future lower court cases on this issue grapple with both precedents.

[twinfoxtails]

Eri, who are the people you find easiest and hardest to act as?

“That’s a bit of a tough question… Umm…”

Easiest:

Satori Komeiji: I knew her for most of my life, after all, and I had the most practice as her too.

Ran Yakumo: Well… the both of us are kitsunes by default, so it’s really easy for us to impersonate each other.

Orin: She’s pretty much like a sister to me during my time in Chireiden! I know her quite well too!

Chen: Both ones! The cute one and my sister! I’m confident I could pull them off quite well!… M-Minus the puns.

Daiyousei: Fairies tend to be really simple to act as!

Reimu Hakurei: D-Do I really have to answer?

Bonus:

Yukari Yakumo: It’s not that I could act as her perfectly, but because she’s so unpredictable to people in public, you can get away with almost anything…

Utsuho: Acting as her is one thing, but it’s hard to replicate the gun on her arm, much less being a walking sun…

Seiga Kaku: … Just because I could doesn’t mean I should…

Parsee Mizuhashi: She’s very easy to act as, even more so when not many people know her well, but it’s not like you see her outside her bridge…

Harune: I knew Miss Harune for a while, but since no one seen her including myself, it’s really risky to turn into her anyway…

Hardest:

Eirin Yagokoro: Miss Eirin not only requires lots of knowledge, but the proper patience and careful choice of words in her dialogue. It’s very hard to pull off especially when you’re thinking in the fly…

Library: She’s a kitsune, but while I could turn into her, she’s always carrying a book or reading… And… I can’t read…-

Val Revi: Miss Val is… unique. I still can’t get a read of her or her motivations. I wonder if she’s an even better actor than I am…

Remilia Scarlet: I used to think I could act as her well, but… she’s gotten so much more colder and merciless recently, that I don’t think I can bring myself to do the same things, even if it’s an act…

Yuugi Hoshiguma: Not only can I not copy her height or her strength, her personality attracts too much attention to herself, which… is usually the opposite of what I plan to do.

Bonus:

Yuuka Kazami: It’s not like I can’t act as her, but after an incident, I… don’t want to ever try acting as her again.

Youmu Konpaku: Aha… It’s not like I could replicate her ghost half, nor am I even as determined as her… I really wish so one day!