A Hunch Isn’t Enough: The 5th Circuit Throws Out Wilson Warrant

C. Scott Courrege, J.D.
6 days ago
3 min read

United States v. Wilson, No. 25-30105 (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025)

TL;DR

Holding: The Fifth Circuit affirmed the suppression of evidence seized from Ricky Wilson’s girlfriend’s apartment because the search warrant affidavit was too bare-bones to establish probable cause or justify good-faith reliance.
Importance: Reinforces that probable cause to arrest does not automatically equal probable cause to search a residence; a concrete nexus must connect the suspected crime to the place searched.
Limits: Dissent argues that common-sense inferences (people keep guns at home) should suffice; the majority requires case-specific evidence, not just assumptions.

Facts

Incident: On April 29, 2023, Ricky Wilson allegedly pulled a distinctive green pistol with a drum magazine from his backpack during a verbal altercation at a Waffle House, frightening a customer. The victim identified Wilson, his vehicle, and later the same weapon on Instagram.
Investigation: A detective tied Wilson to his girlfriend’s apartment at 212 Central Ave., noting his car was seen there two weeks later.
Warrant Application: The affidavit described the Waffle House incident in detail but offered only the assertion that evidence “related to” the incident was “believed” to be located at 212 Central.
Search & Charges: Officers found ammo, marijuana, and a firearm at the apartment. Wilson was charged with multiple firearm and drug offenses.
District Court: Suppressed the evidence, ruling the affidavit lacked a nexus between the Waffle House assault and the residence. The government appealed.

Issues

Did the search warrant affidavit establish probable cause to search 212 Central Ave.?
If not, did the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply?

Court’s Decision (Holding)

The Fifth Circuit affirmed suppression. The affidavit was so lacking in factual support that reliance on it was objectively unreasonable. The good-faith exception could not save the search.

Reasoning

1. Fourth Amendment Demands a Nexus

Probable cause to arrest ≠ probable cause to search.
A valid affidavit must show a fair probability that evidence will be found at the place to be searched.
Here, nothing tied the Waffle House gun to 212 Central — no observations, no tips, no factual bridge.

2. Bare-Bones Affidavit

Courts reject “ipse dixit” affidavits that only assert belief without supporting facts.
The detective’s affidavit was essentially a conclusory statement: Wilson lived at 212 Central; therefore, evidence might be there. That is speculation, not probable cause.

3. Good-Faith Exception Inapplicable

Normally, evidence seized under a defective warrant may still be admissible if officers reasonably relied on it (Leon).
But when affidavits are so conclusory that belief in probable cause is unreasonable, the exception does not apply.
The court compared this affidavit to classic “bare-bones” examples in Morton and Nathanson — nothing more than suspicion dressed up as paperwork.

4. Distinguishing Prior Cases

Government’s reliance on cases upholding residential searches failed. Those affidavits had “meat on the bones” (facts tying crime to home, trafficking patterns, etc.).
Guns, unlike passports or mail, are portable and often discarded — generalizations cannot substitute for case-specific facts.

5. The Dissent

Judge Ho dissented:
- Emphasized “common sense” inference that people keep personal items (including firearms) at home.
- Noted precedent (Green, Freeman, Chew) that supports such inferences, especially when home is close to the crime scene.
- Warned that requiring hypertechnical detail elevates form over substance and undermines the good-faith exception.

Street Takeaways

Probable Cause Must Connect Crime to Place: Officers cannot rely solely on residence + crime = probable cause. They must show facts tying the contraband to the location.
Affidavits Need More Than Belief: Bare assertions that evidence is “believed” to be present are constitutionally insufficient.
Good-Faith Has Limits: If an affidavit lacks facts entirely, suppression is required even if officers thought they were acting lawfully.
Guns Are Different from Papers: Courts view firearms as portable, not inherently tied to the home like mail or passports.
Split in Philosophy: Majority requires evidence-anchored nexus; dissent favors common-sense inferences, especially about guns at home.

Disclaimer

This case brief is prepared for training and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Law enforcement officers should always consult their agency policies, local prosecutors, and legal advisors before applying case law in the field.