be wholly innocent to the untrained observer.” Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 52 at n. 2, 99 S.Ct. 2687, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979) (citations omitted). It has long been recognized that “a police officer may draw inferences based on his own experience in deciding whether probable cause exists.” Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 700, 116 S.Ct. 1657, citing United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 897, 95 S.Ct. 2585, 45 L.Ed.2d 623 (1975). Due deference is to be given to inferences drawn from the facts' of an investigation by law enforcement officers. Ornelas, 517 U.S. at 699, 116 S.Ct. 1657. The nexus required by the Fourth Amendment is that “between the contraband [being sought] and the place to be searched.” United States v. Tellez, 217 F.3d 547, 550 (8th Cir.2000). There is not a per se rul Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Based on the aforementioned precedent,
holding that a defendants prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance and felon in possession of a firearm helped support probable cause to search his motel room for evidence of burglary holding warrantless search of motel room after occupant was arrested outside room for drug possession could not be justified as search incident to arrest absent other exigent circumstances holding that the warrant application at issue did not specifically mention the presence of criminal activity at defendants residence but that the executing officers reasonably relied on the warrant holding that the warrant application at issue did not specifically mention the presence of criminal activity at defendants residence but that the executing officers reasonably relied on warrant holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed tp mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity