Case 2:15-cr-00116-AWA-RJK Document 18 Filed 10/07/15 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 99
Hadsell’s lack of phone use and social media updates as potential probable cause to believe that
evidence of Ms. Hadsell’s abduction would be found in Mr. Hadsell’s hotel room. However,
statements in the affidavit regarding these instances do not amount to probable cause either.
Inconsistent statements and Ms. Hadsell’s shortage of posts on her social media pages does not
provide probable cause that there would be evidence of abduction in Mr. Hadsell’s hotel room.
The search warrant is invalid because the underlying facts in the affidavit do not provide a nexus
to the place targeted for search.
Moreover, the affidavit notes that “AB,” who had known Ms. Hadsell since sixth grade
and participated in her search, “observed a folded blue windbreaker”, later identified to belong to
Ms. Hadsell, in Ms. Hadsell’s ex-boyfriend’s bedroom. If anything, such information at the time
the affidavit was written would give rise to probable cause to search Ms. Hadsell’s exboyfriend’s
house, not Mr. Hadsell’s hotel room.
Lastly, it is well noted in the affidavit that detectives observed Mr. Hadsell from on or
about March 11, 2015, until March 20, 2015. The affidavit states that on March 11, 2015,
“physical and mobile surveillance was established on Wesley Hadsell’s known hotel room
located at 1850 East Little Creek Road, MD International Hotel.” The affidavit goes on to state
the detectives’ findings from their surveillance, all of which report only on his driving habits.
In United States v. Daughtery, probable cause for issuance of a search warrant of the
defendant’s residence was found when police drove past the defendant’s residence and
personally observed marijuana plants from the road. United States v. Daughtery, 215 F. App'x
314 (4th Cir. 2007). In United States v. Williams, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
held that the totality of facts established fair probability that drug paraphernalia would be found