S.H. v. District of Columbia (270 F. Supp. 3d 260, 2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge

This is the final case in a series of cases seeking, damages against the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) and individual officers for allegedly searching private homes without probable cause. In this case, as in the other cases, Plaintiffs challenge the MPD’s practice of seeking search warrants based on an officer’s attestation that, in light of his or her “training” and “experience,” individuals suspected of certain crimes—typically involving the illegal distribution of drugs or unlawful possession of guns—’are likely to have evidence of their unlawful activity in their homes. And here, as in the other cases, Plaintiffs allege that the officer who, submitted the affidavit knew, or should have known, that just the opposite was true and that, in fact, people who aré arrested outside their homes on drug or gun charges rarely keep evidence of then-illegal activity in their homes. Although implicating these common themes, however, this case, like the others, turns on its unique facts and raises a host of distinct issues and claims.

The present dispute began when the MPD stopped a car in Northeast Washington, D.C., for driving with an allegedly obstructed license plate. That stop led to the arrest of Mordsen Box on various charges, including possession of approximately five ounces of marijuana with intent to distribute. Box carried an Ohio identification card, and the car he drove had Ohio license plates. But Box also had a suspended D.C. driver’s .license, which indicated that he lived at 1054 Quebec Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. Based on this information, other information that is disputed for present purposes, and the attesting officer’s “training” and “experience,” .Officer Taylor Volpe of the MPD obtained a search warrant. Armed with that warrant, the MPD then conducted a nighttime search of the Quebec Place residence thirteen days after Box was'arrested.

When the MPD officers entered the home, they found Shandalyn Harrison (“Harrison”) sitting on the couch watching television with her seven- and, thirteen-year-old daughters (“S.B.” and “S.R.,” respectively). They then found Harrison’s nineteen-year-old brother Sterling Harrison (“Sterling”) playing a video game in his bedroom, pointed a gun at his head, and placed him in handcuffs. The MPD officers proceeded to enter the bathroom where Harrison’s eleven-year-old daughter (“S.H.”) was showering, opened the shower curtain, and pointed a gun at her while she stood naked in the shower. In the course of the search, the MPD allegedly ransacked the home, but found no evidence of illegal activity. According to Plaintiffs, although Box is the biological father of S.B., he had not lived with the family in several years. Plaintiffs further assert that they had informed the MPD of this fact on at least two occasions prior to the search.

Plaintiffs challenge virtually every aspect of the search, from whether the MPD had probable cause to search Box’s car in the first place, to the candor of Officer Volpe’s affidavit in support of his application for the search warrant, to the validity and breadth pf the warrant, and, finally, to the manner in which the search was conducted. They also challenge the policies and practices of the MPD relating to the training and supervision of its officers. Defendants, in turn, have moved to dismiss, arguing that (1) the individual .defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law, (2) the complaint fails to state a claim under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (“Monell’’) against the MPD or the District of Columbia, and (3) the complaint fails to state a claim' for negligence per se.

•For the reasons explained below," the' Court will grant Defendants’ motion in part and deny it in part.

I. BACKGROUND

' At this stage of the proceéding, the Court must accept the factual allegations contained in Plaintiffs’ amended complaint as true "arid must also consider the search warrant' and affidavit,' which are attached to and referenced" in their complaint. See, e.g., Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007).

A. Traffic Stop of Mordsen Box

MPD officer Taylor Volpe stopped a car on April 5, 2013, in Northeast Washington, D.C., for driving with an obstructed license plate. See Dkt. 1-1 at 3-4. Plaintiffs assert—and the Court must accept as true— that the license plate was "not obstructed and that Volpe did not have a legitimate reason to conduct the stop. See Dkt. 24 at 4 (Am. Compl. ¶ 15 & n.3). Volpe "asked the driver, Mordsen' Box, if the officers cóuld search the car for “anything illegal.” Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 16) (quoting Dkt. 1-1 at 4). Box replied that he did not think there was anything illegal in the car, but told Volpe he could search “if [he] ha[d] to.” Id. at 5 (Am. Compl. ¶ 18). Volpe confirmed': “[0]k, so- can I look?” Id. Box responded with a “yeah.” Id. Volpe then searched the car and found a glass jar with 42.2 grams (about 1.5 ounces) of marijuana. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 19). Officers also found'twenty-nine empty plastic sandwich bags in the vehicle, as well as $180 in cash during a search of Box’s person. Id.

■ Box was arrested and taken to the police ■ station. Dkt. 1-1 at.4. Five to ten minutes after he was taken out- of the transport vehicle, officers discovered another 103.2 grams (more than 3.6 ounces) of marijuana in a ziplock bag inside the police van. Id. Box was the last person to exit the vehicle, and the officers had hot seen the marijuana inside before taking him to the station. Id. Box was charged with driving with a suspended license, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. Id. at 4-5.

B. Officer Volpe’s Warrant Application

Three days after Box’s arrest, Volpe applied for a warrant to search the Quebec Place residence. In support of that application, Volpe submitted an affidavit attesting to various facts purporting to establish probable cause (1) that Box resided at 1054 Quebec Place, and (2) that a search would reveal evidence of illegal narcotics trafficking at his residence. See Dkt. 1-1.

With respect to Box’s place of residence, Volpe disclosed that the car Box was driving had Ohio license plates and that Box was carrying an Ohio identification- card. Id. at 3-4. He further attested, however, that Box stated at the time of his arrest that “his current address [wa]s 1054 Quebec Placé Northwest[,] Washington[,] D[.]C.,” and that “Box had a utility listing [dated] 12-27-2012 at 1054 Quebec Place.” Id. at 5. Volpe also attested that Box stated “that his D.C. driver’s license had been suspended,” that Volpe ran Box’s name “through [the] Wales/NCIC” database, and that Box’s “suspended, D.C. license ... listfed] the same [Quebec Place] address as his place of residence.” Id. at 4-5.

With respect to the second question— whether there was probable cause to believe that a search of Box’s residence would reveal evidence of his involvement in illegal narcotics. trafficking—-Volpe relied principally on the “training” and “experience” he had gained over the course of his year of service as a member of the MPD. Id. at 2. In addition to averring that Box had been arrested in possession of approximately five ounces of marijuana, twenty-nine empty plastic sandwich bags, and $180 in twenty-dollar bills, id. at 4, Volpe’s affidavit included several paragraphs devoted to describing where those engaged in narcotics trafficking “routinely” or “common[ly]” conceal contraband and other evidence of their criminal activity. Id. at 2-3. He attested that, “[b]ased on [his] training and experience, [he].kn[e]w that”:

a. Individuals who deal in illegal controlled substances maintain books, records, receipts, notes, ledgers, bank records, money orders and other papers relating to the importation, manufacture, transportation, ordering, sale and distribution of illegal controlled substances, [and that] [t]hese [materials] are maintained where'[those individuals] have ready access to them, such as in secured locations within their residence, the residences of friends, family members, and associates, or in ... a stash house or safe house.

b. Individuals who deal in illegal controlled substances routinely conceal in their residences or the residences of friends, family members, and associates, or in the places of operation of the drug distribution activity, such as a stash house or safe house, large quantities of currency, financial instruments, precious metals, jewelry and other items of value, typically proceeds of illegal controlled substance transactions,

c. It is common for [drug dealers], especially [those who sell] marijuana, to secrete contraband related to [their] activity, such as scales, safes locked or .unlocked[,] at their residences, or the residences of friends, family members, or associates, or in ... a stash house or safe house.

. d. Individuals who deal in the . sale and distribution of controlled substances commonly maintain addresses and telephone number books or papers which reflect names, addresses and/or telephone numbers for their associates in their illegal organizations^] [t]hese individuals often utilize cellular telephones, pagers and telephone systems to maintain contact with their associates in their illegal businesses^] [and] [t]hese telephone records, bills and pager numbers are often found in their place of residence, or the residence of friends, family members, or associates, or in ... a stash house or safe house.

e. Individuals who deal in illegal controlled substances often take photos of themselves, their associates, their property and illegal- contraband^] [and usually maintain those materials] in their places of residence, or the residences of friends, family members, or associates, or ... a stash house or safe house.

-f. Persons who traffic controlled substances maintain- documents, letters and records relating to illegal activity for long periods of time[,] [and] [t]his documentary evidence is usually secreted in their residence, or the residences of friends, family members, or associates, or in ... a stash ■ house or safe house.

g. Individuals involved in narcotics i trafficking often own, possess and/or use weapons as a means to facilitate their illegal drug activities^] [and] [s]uch weapons are most often secreted in their residence, or thq residences of friends, family members, or associates, or in ... a stash house or safe house.

Id. at 2-3 (emphases added). And, finally, Volpe attested that based on his “experience and knowledge,” those “who distribute illegal narcotics make it a habit to store them at their place of residence” to avoid “being robbed of their product by rival ... traffickers” and “to keep members of law enforcement from seizing their product.” Id. at 5.

Plaintiffs dispute several assertions contained in Volpe’s affidavit. For one, they assert that Box never told Volpe that he lived at 1054 Quebec Place. Dkt. 24 at 7 (Am. Compl. ¶ 27). For another, they challenge Volpe’s assertion that a recent utility bill indicated that Box lived at the Quebec Place residence; they allege, to the contrary, that “none of the utility bills at the house had ever been in ... Box’s name.” Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 29). And, they allege that Volpe’s affidavit omitted the fact that MPD officers had been informed on at least two occasions “in the weeks and months leading up to the application for the warrant” that Box did not live at the Quebec Place residence. Id. at 6 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24-25). On one occasion, “Harrison told police at the door that ,.. Box did not live there,” and, on the other, S.B., S.H., and S.R.’s grandmother told officers who came to the door the same thing. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 25).

Plaintiffs also dispute the accuracy of Volpe’s factual assertions regarding the knowledge gleaned from his “training” and “experience” regarding the “common” or “routine” habits of drug dealers. They allege, for example, that Volpe failed to inform the Superior Court judge who issued the warrant that, “in the vast majority of cases in which MPD officers execute such warrants after a traffic or street stop based only on their ‘training and ‘experience’ and not actual evidence connecting the home to criminal activity, the warrant returns submitted by officers themselves prove that MPD officers do not find the items, that they seek.” Id. at 10 (Am Compl. ¶ 42). Indeed, according to Plaintiffs, “[i]f small amounts of marijuana are excluded, MPD officers failed to find illegal drugs that they were purportedly searching for in nearly 87% of the cases.” Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 44). In their view, that success rate “is closer to what one would expect to find at random in searches of homes occupied by D.C. families.” Id. at 11 (Am. Compl. ¶ 46). Plaintiffs further contend that the Volpe affidavit, in at least one respect, refutes the probable cause it purported to establish—that is, rather than focusing on the likelihood that evidence of illegal activity will be found in the homes of those engaged in drug trafficking, it avers that this evidence might be found in the drug dealer’s home; or the homes of the drug dealer’s friends, family, or associates; or, if not in any of those places, in a stash house or safe house. Dkt. 1-1 at 2. According to Plaintiffs, Volpe’s own assertions, accordingly, minimize the likelihood that the relevant evidence will be found where the di'ug dealer resides, as opposed to one of the numerous other locations Volpe identifies. Dkt. 11 at 24-25.

A D.C. Superior Court judge signed the warrant application on April 8, 2013, and authorized the MPD to conduct a search on or before April 18, 2013. Dkt. 1-1 at 1, 6. The warrant provided: “YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED within 10 days of the date of issuance of this warrant to search in the daytime/at any time of the day or night, the designated (person) (premises) (vehicle) (object) for the property specified ....” Id. at 1. It listed a broad array of items for which the MPD was authorized to search, including illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, scales, books, cash, containers, computers, records, notes, and telephone bills. Id.

C. The Search of the Harrison Home

According to the amended complaint, approximately twenty armed MPD officers executed the search warrant at the Quebec Place residence on April 18, 2013, at 10:00 p.m. Dkt. 24 at 15 (Am. Compl. ¶ 62). When the officers arrived, Harrison was sitting on her couch with two of her daughters, S.B.- and S.R., aged seven and thirteen, watching television. Id. at 3, 15 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 63). The officers “banged loudly” on the door but did not identify themselves as police, and, as “Harrison began to open the door ..., the [officers] burst through the door, physically knocking her back.” Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 64). The amended complaint further alleges that the officers entered the home “wielding shields, machine guns, handguns, and other weapons.” Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 65). The officers kept Harrison and her two daughters on the couch as they searched the rest of the house. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 66).

. Three officers found Harrison’s nineteen-year-old brother Sterling in his room playing a video game. Id. at 3, 15 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 67). The officers aimed their weapons at his head and handcuffed him “even though he had remained calm and had done nothing illegal, aggressive, or violent.” Id. The officers “continued to point guns at him even after it was clear that he did not pose any threat.” Id. They took Sterling out of his room, brought him to the family room where his sister and nieces were seated, and held up a photograph of the thirty-two-year-old Box. Id. at 15-16 (Am. Compl, ¶ 68). The family told the officers that Sterling was not the man in the photograph. Id. at 16 (Am. Compl. ¶ 68). The officers, nonetheless, kept Sterling handcuffed for approximately thirty minutes. Id.

Meanwhile, another officer in a different part of the house entered a bathroom unannounced after hearing the shower running. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 70). He opened the shower curtain and" found eleven-year-old S.H. naked in the shower. Id. at 3, 16 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 70-71). With one hand displaying his shield, the officer allegedly pointed his weapon at the girl’s head. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 71). S.H. began “screaming and crying for her mommy” as she stood naked, unable to leave or to retrieve a towel or clothes because the officer was pointing his gun at her. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 72). Harrison responded to the screams and brought her daughter clothing. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 73). The entire family was then confined to the couch while the officers continued the search. Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 74). The officers “ransacked the home, ... and it took the family days of laboring to clean up their belongings.” Id. at 16 (Am. Compl. ¶ 75). The MPD did not locate any evidence.of unlawful activity. Dkt. 1-1 at 1.

D. Procedural History

Plaintiffs brought suit in August 2014, Dkt. 1, and filed an amended complaint in September 2015, Dkt. 24. Their amended complaint is sweeping. In Count One, Plaintiffs allege that the warrant was so lacking in probable cause that no reasonable officer could have relied upon it in good faith. Dkt. 24 at 20-21 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 93-94). In Count Two, they allege that the warrant application contained a series of knowingly or recklessly false statements and material omissions. Id. at 21 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 95-96). In Count Three, they allege that the warrant was so clearly overbroad that no reasonable officer could have executed it in good faith. Id. at 21-22 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 97-98). In Count Four, they allege that the search of Box’s car that resulted in discovery of the marijuana and his arrest was unconstitutional and that this Fourth Amendment violation infected the warrant to search the Quebec Place residence. Id. at 22 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 99-100). In Counts Five and Eight, Plaintiffs challenge the failure of the MPD to properly train and supervise its officers. Id. at 22-23, 25-26 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 101-02, 108-09). In Count Six, they allege that the officers who searched the Quebec Place residence used excessive force and made unnecessary and unreasonable seizures. Id. at 23-24 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 103-04). And, finally, in .Count Seven, they allege that the nighttime search of the Quebec Place residence was per se negligent under the U.S. Constitution and D.C. law. Id. at 24-25 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 105-07).

After Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, the parties agreed to treat Defendants’ previously-filed motion to dismiss as though it had been filed in response to the amended complaint. Dkt. 31. The parties subsequently requested that the Court stay the action—along with' the other similar cases pending before the Court—to permit them “to focus.on settlement efforts,” and the Court granted a stay. See Minute Order (Dec. 9, 2016). The parties’ efforts to settle this case proved unsuccessful, and the Court lifted the stay in April 2017. See Minute Order (April 4, 2017).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party moving to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) bears the burden of showing that the complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must-contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when- the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. The Court need not accept as true any legal conclusions disguised as factual allegations, “ ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual. enhancement,’ ” or “ ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause, of action.’ ” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955) (alteration in original)-. The plaintiff, however, is entitled to “the. benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Thomas v. Principi, 394 F.3d 970, 972 (D.C. Cir. 2005)).

Police officers enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable [officer] would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). This limited protection “balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). The law is “[o]rdinarily” clearly established if there is “a Supreme Court or [] Circuit decision” on the issue or if “the clearly established weight of authority from other courts ... ha[s] found the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.” Doe v. District of Columbia, 796 F.3d 96, 104 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905, 923 (10th Cir. 2001)) (second alteration in original), There need not be “a case directly on point” for the right to be clearly established, “but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate” at the time the alleged violation occurred. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011). In other words, the “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear” so that any “reasonable official would understand .that what he is doing violates .that right.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). A plaintiff seeking to overcome a claim of qualified immunity bears the burden of showing that the constitutional right that the officers allegedly violated was clearly established at the relevant time. See Dukore v. District of Columbia, 799 F.3d 1137, 1145 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

III. ANALYSIS

Although Defendants ask the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint in its entirety—and they broadly assert that the individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity and that the amended complaint does not otherwise state a claim, Dkt. 8 at 1—their motion, in substance, addresses only a handfdl of the many issues raised by Plaintiffs’ amended complaint. It argues, in particular, that the lawfulness of the search of Box’s car'is irrelevant'to!the present dispute; that the information that Plaintiffs say Volpe omitted from his affidavit was immaterial, as was Yolpe’s allegedly false assertion that Box identified 1054 Quebec Place as his residence; that, as a matter of law, the MPD’s use of firearms and handcuffs in the course of the search did not constitute excessive force; that Plaintiffs’ Monell claims fail as a matter of law because their underlying claims fail; and that Plaintiffs have failed to allege the necessary elements of a claim for negligence per se. See Dkt. 8 at 9-18. The Court will, accordingly, confine its analysis to- these issues, leaving the remaining issues for another day.

The Court will first address issues relating to the warrant; will then turn to the execution' of the search; will next address whether the complaint alleges a claim for negligence per se; and will finally address Plaintiffs’ Monell claims.

A. Reliance on the Warrant (Counts One-Four)

The right of a person “to retreat into his [or her] own home and there to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion” lies “[a]t the core” of the Fourth Amendment. Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505, 511, 81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961). As a result, with limited exceptions not applicable here, the Fourth Amendment prohibits “searches and seizures inside a home without a [valid] warrant.” Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551, 558-59, 564, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004); see also, e.g., Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403, 126 S.Ct. 1943, 164 L.Ed.2d 650 (2006); Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001). A warrant is valid, in turn, only if it is based “upon probable cause, supported by [o]ath or affirmation,” and only if it “particularly describes] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const., amend. IV. Here, Plaintiffs contend that the warrant lacked these basic features, rendering the search of their home effectively war-rantless and, hence, unconstitutional.

To pierce the defendant officers’ qualified immunity, however, Plaintiffs must do more than prove that the warrant was invalid. They must, in addition, show that the flaws were so “obvious that no reasonably competent officer would have concluded that a warrant should [have] issue[d].” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 106 S.Ct. 1092, 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). The governing standard derives from United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), an exclusionary rule case holding that evidence procured in violation of a criminal defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights need not be suppressed if the officers reasonably relied bn a warrant. Although crafted in a different context, “the same standard of objective reasonableness that ... applie[s] in the context of a suppression hearing [under] Leon, [also] defines the qualified immunity accorded an officer whose request for a warrant allegedly caused an unconstitutional arrest” or search. Malley, 475 U.S. at 344 & n.6, 106 S.Ct. 1092.

Leon, however, also recognized certain “circumstances [in which] the officer[s] will have no reasonable grounds for believing that the warrant was properly issued,” 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (footnote omitted), and those same exceptions apply in assessing whether an officer is immune from civil suit. No such reasonable grounds exist, for example, “if the magistrate or judge in issuing a warrant was misled [with respect to a material fact] by information in an affidavit that the affi-ant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth.” Id. at 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)). “Nor would an officer manifest objective good faith in relying on a warrant based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535, 546-47, 132 S.Ct. 1235, 182 L.Ed.2d 47 (2012). And “a warrant may be so facially deficient—i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized—that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405; see also Groh, 540 U.S. at 565, 124 S.Ct. 1284.

Counts One, Two, and Three of Plaintiffs’ amended complaint attempt to bring this case within these three Leon exceptions. See Dkt. 24 at 20-22 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 94, 96, 98). Count Four, meanwhile, seeks t'o establish an additional exception—not recognized in Leon—that would prohibit officers from relying on warrants based on affidavits containing information obtained in violation of a third party’s Fourth Amendment rights. See id. at 22 (Am. Compl. ¶ 100). The Court considers each count, and each asserted exception, below.

1. False Statements and Material Omissions in Volpe’s Affidavit (Count Two)

For analytic clarity, the Court begins with Count Two, which alleges that Officer Volpe secured the warrant only by knowingly and recklessly misleading the Superi- or Court judge who issued it. See id. at 21 (Am. Compl. ¶ 96). “Because a search warrant provides the detached scrutiny of a neutral magistrate,” the Supreme Court has “expressed a strong preference for warrants and [has] declared that in a doubtful or marginal case a search under a warrant may be sustainable where without one it would fail.” Leon, 468 U.S. at 913-14, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Under a rule first announced in Franks v. Delaware, and reaffirmed in Leon, however, that deference “gives way when the affidavit upon which the magistrate relied ‘contained] a deliberately or recklessly false statement.’ ” Lane v. District of Columbia, 211 F.Supp.3d 150, 173 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 165, 98 S.Ct. 2674).

A finding of deliberate or reckless falsity does not; however, end the inquiry. The Franks analysis includes a second step: The Court must also consider whether the false statements were “material.” Id. at 173 (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 156, 98 S.Ct. 2674). To assess materiality, the Court must construct a hypothetical affidavit that omits the false statements and then must ask whether the remaining portions of the affidavit would have been sufficient “to establish probable cause.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 156, 98 S.Ct. 2674. “Th[is] same two-step approach,” moreover, also “applies to ■omissions.” Lane, 211 F.Supp.3d at 173. “The Court must first determine whether the affiant deliberately or recklessly omitted relevant information and,” second, must determine “whether ‘inclusion’ of the omitted information ‘in the affidavit would [have] defeated] probable cause.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Spencer, 530 F.3d 1003, 1007 (D.C. Cir. 2008)) (alterations in original). In both circumstances, the Court’s task is essentially the same. “It must excise any information that is allegedly false and include any information allegedly omitted,” id., and must then ask whether the revised, hypothetical affidavit would “still establish probable cause,” id. (quoting United States v. Cardoza, 713 F.3d 656, 659 (D.C. Cir. 2013)).

Finally, because the defendant officers seek to invoke their qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, the Court must accept Plaintiffs’ allegations as true and must draw all reasonable inferences derived from those allegations in Plaintiffs’ favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937; Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 642 F.3d at 1139. At this early stage of the 'proceeding, moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to allege “intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind ... generally.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). That does not mean they may rely on “conclusory” allegations of knowledge or recklessness. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 686-87, 129 S.Ct. 1937. But Rule 9(b) relieves them of the need to meet the “elevated” pleading standards that apply in cases of fraud or mistake, and the Court must construe Plaintiffs’ factual allegations in their favor. Id.

a. Subtractions

. As a first step in this analysis, the Court must excise from the Volpe affidavit any statements that. Plaintiffs plausibly allege were knowingly or recklessly false. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72, 98. S.Ct. 2674. Plaintiffs argue—and, for present purposes, Defendants do not contest—that three categories of statements fit that bill.

First, Plaintiffs allege that Volpe’s affidavit contained two falsehoods regarding the night of Box’s arrest. According to Volpe, (1) Box orally “advised” the officers after his arrest' that the Quebec Place residence was “his current address” and (2) the officers learned that Box “had a utility listing” at the Quebec Place address dated four months prior to his arrest. Dkt. 1-1 at 5. Plaintiffs allege that both assertions are false. Dkt. 24 at 7 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 27, 29). They allege that Box never told Volpe “that he lived at 1054 Quebec Place,” id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 27), and that “none of the utility bills at the house had ever been in ... Box’s name,” id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 29). They further allege, moreover, that Volpe’s assertions were “knowingly and recklessly false and misleading.” Id. at 21 (Am. Compl. ¶ 96). Because Defendants concede that the Court must accept as true the allegation that “Box never stated he lived at [the Quebec Place] home,” Dkt. -8 at 13, and because Defendants do not address the remainder of Plaintiffs’ allegations on this point, see id. at 12-13, the Court will strike these allegedly false statements from the hypothetical affidavit.

Second, Plaintiffs challenge the entirety of paragraph two of Volpe’s affidavit, which is quoted in substantial part above. See supra pp. 266-68. That paragraph averred that, based on his “training and experience,” Volpe knew that “[i]ndividuals who deal in illegal controlled substances” regularly keep many inculpatory items beyond illegal drugs at their homes (and at any other places to which they “have ready access”). Dkt 1-1 at 1-2. Volpe’s affidavit thus attested that there was probable cause to believe that the officers searching Box’s residence would find, for example, (1) “ledgers,” “receipts,” “plane and bus tickets,” “false identificationfs],” arid other “records” ’ evidencing the “importation,” “manufacture,” “ordering,” and “distribution” of illegal drugs; (2) “currency,” “precious metals,”, “jewelry,” and “other items of value”, constituting proceeds from the illegal , drug trade; (3) “cellular phones,” “address books,”, and “photographs” identifying members of “illegal organization^];” and (4)- “weapons” used “to facilitate ... illegal drug activities.” Id, The final sentence of paragraph six of the Volpe affidavit, moreover, essentially repeats these same assertions. Id. at 5.

In truth, Plaintiffs allege, experience teaches just the opposite. In the one-year period surrounding the warrant application in this case, MPD officers allegedly executed “dozens” of home search warrants based only on similar descriptions of their “training” and “experience.” Dkt. 24 at 8 (Am. Compl, ¶ 36). MPD records documenting the results of those searches, however, allegedly show that- “it is extremely rare .,, that such ‘training’ and ‘experience-based home-raids in the District of Columbia, yield any such documents or records of drug distribution,*’ Id. at 12 (Am. Compl. ¶ 51). According to the amended complaint, fewer than one percent ' of those searches found any such items. Id.

Plaintiffs, further allege that paragraph two (and the final sentence of paragraph-six) “left the issuing judge with the false impression that all ‘drug traffickers’ share the same relevant habits.” Id. (Am. Compl. ¶ 53). “[A] small-time neighborhood dealer on a D.C. corner,” they allege, “is far less likely to keep sophisticated computerized records of transactions or detailed financial banking records than a high-level mul-ti-state or international manager of a drug-distribution enterprise.” Id. at 8 (Am. Compl. ¶ 36 n.9). According to Plaintiffs, Volpe knew that the evidence, at most, supported a finding that Box was a “street-level drug seller[],” and he was therefore “utterly unlikely to possess the various specific items” that paragraph two identified. Id. at 13 (Am. Compl. ¶ 55). For both of these reasons, according to Plaintiffs, Volpe had to- have known that his “training” and “experience” did not support the sweeping averments contained in paragraph two of his affidavit. See id. at 12-13 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 51, 55).

Defendants do not argue that Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the known falsity of paragraph two (and the final sentence of paragraph six) are implausible. See Dkt. 8 at 12-13. Nor do they provide any other reasons why the Court should not treat those allegations as true for purposes of Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See id. The Court will, accordingly, strike paragraph two and the final sentence of paragraph six from the hypothetical affidavit.

Third, Plaintiffs challenge the veracity of the remainder of paragraph ,six of Volpe’s affidavit, which averred more modestly—again, based on Volpe’s “experience and knowledge”—that “persons who distribute illegal narcotics make it a habit to store [illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia] at their plaee[s] of residence.” Dkt. 1-1 at 5. This too, Plaintiffs allege, was knowingly or recklessly false. Dkt. 24 at 21 (Am. Compl. ¶ 96). According to Plaintiffs, a re-, view of similar warrants that authorized the search of private homes for illegal drugs, based solely on the “training” and “experience” -of MPD officers, showed that the “police officers failed to find any drugs, let alone the drugs they were looking for, in almost 66% of the cases.” Id. at 10 (Am. Compl. ¶ 43); see also id. at 18 (Am. Compl. ¶ 86). And when “small amounts of marijuana” are excluded—presumably, amounts insufficient to support an inference of intent to distribute—the failure rate jumps to “nearly 87%.” Id. at 10 (Am. Compl. ¶ 44). According to the amended complaint, these low success rates are “closer to what one would expect to find” in random searches of D.C. homes. Id. at 11 (Am. Compl. ¶ 46).

The Court cannot, of course, conclude that these alleged success rates by themselves establish that Volpe’s averments in paragraph six were false. But that is beside the point for present purposes; it is not the Court’s role at this stage of the proceeding to decide whether Plaintiffs’ evidence is sufficient to meet their ultimate burden of proof. Rather, for present purposes, the Court need only decide whether the amended complaint contains sufficient factual detail to show that Plaintiffs’ claims are plausible. See, e.g., Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham, 798 F.3d 1119, 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“[W]e do not require ‘detailed factual allegations’ for a claim to survive a motion to dismiss.” (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937)); Leatherman v. Tarrant Cty. Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 167-68, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993) (no heightened pleading standard for qualified immunity); see also Lane, 211 F.Supp.3d at 175 (“[T]he statistics the plaintiffs offer may be flawed and ..., standing alone, do not conclusively show that the warrant lacked probable cause. But it is not the Court’s role to resolve this dispute on a motion to dismiss.”). Although establishing the truth of Plaintiffs’ allegations at trial may prove “no simple task,” Davis v. District of Columbia, 156 F.Supp.3d 194, 202 (D.D.C. 2016), Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding the success rate of similar warrants, Dkt. 24 at 10, 19, 21 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 42, 89, 96), satisfy. the far less demanding plausibility test, see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937; see also Pitts v. District of Columbia, 177 F.Supp.3d 347, 360 (D.D.C. 2016) (construing complaint similarly).

The Court will therefore treat Plaintiffs’ allegations as true and strike the remainder of paragraph six from the hypothetical affidavit.

b. Additions

The Court must also add to the hypothetical affidavit any knowing or reckless omissions of material facts. See Spencer, 530 F.3d at 1007. As discussed below, Plaintiffs identify four such -omissions. Accepting the truth of Plaintiffs’ allegations for present purposes, the Court agrees that three of the four omissions were material and thus belong in the hypothetical affidavit. ■ ■

First, Plaintiffs allege that Volpe knowingly omitted from his affidavit the fact that, twice in the preceding months, MPD officers had visited the Harrisons’ home to look for Box only to have the Harrisons inform them that Box did not reside there. See Dkt. 24 at 6, 21 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 24-26, 96). On one occasion, according to the amended complaint, “S.B., S.H., and S.R.’s grandmother informed officers who came to the family’s door that ... Box did- not live there,” and, on another, “Harrison told police at the door that ... Box did not live there.” M at 6 (Am. Compl. ¶ 25). Plaintiffs allege, moreover, that Volpe knowingly omitted this information from his affidavit. Id. at 21 (Am. Compl. ¶ 96). Defendants do not argue that these allegations are implausible or immaterial to the issuance of the warrant; indeed, in addressing Plaintiffs’ Franks argument, they do not discuss these alleged omissions at all. See Dkt. 8 at 12-13.

To be sure, a reasonable police officer need not blindly accept an occupant’s denial that a criminal suspect resides at the premises to be searched. But that does not mean that such assertions are necessarily immaterial. To the contrary, courts have long recognized that responses given to an officer’s questions—whether by the suspect or others—are among the factors properly considered in assessing probable cause. See United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 897, 95 S.Ct. 2585, 45 L.Ed.2d 623 (1975); cf. Wesby v. District of Columbia, 765 F.3d 13, 21 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (explaining that suspects’ statements were “central to ... consideration of whether a reasonable officer could have believed that the Plaintiffs had” committed a crime). The weight, if any, to be accorded to such a denial will turn on its context and other indicia of its reliability. Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (noting that a probable cause determination “depends on the totality of the circumstances”); United States v. Jackson, 415 F.3d 88, 91 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“Probable cause ... is an objective standard requiring an analysis of the totality of the circumstances and the facts known to the officers at the time of the search.”).

The Court will, accordingly, add this alleged omitted fact to the hypothetical affidavit and will assess its materiality in light of the “totality of the circumstances.”

Second, Plaintiffs allege that Volpe knowingly omitted from his affidavit “that, based on his and the MPD’s actual experience ..., it was far more likely that no [inculpatory evidence, weapons, or drugs] would be found” at Box’s residence. Dkt. 24 at 11 (Am. Compl. ¶ 49); accord id. at 13 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 55, 57). As a result, Plaintiffs contend, the affidavit should have apprised the judge that the MPD’s “training” and “experience”-based searches, in fact, have, low success rates. Id. at 11 (Am. Compl. ¶ 47). Defendants raise three arguments why these “low” success rates, even if true, would not have materially affected the assessment of probable cause. See Dkt. 8 at 12, 16. The Court is unpersuaded.

Defendants first cite Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237, 245-46, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013), for the proposition that “success and failure rates have limited usefulness” in assessing probable cause. Dkt. 8 at 12. But the paragraph of Hams on which Defendants rely merely explains that “field data” are a less reliable means of assessing a drug-sniffing dog’s accuracy than data collected in “controlled testing environments.” 568 U.S. at 245-46, 133 S.Ct. 1050. That observation has no bearing on this case, and it certainly does not establish that police officers’ actual experiences are immaterial to the probable cause inquiry. See Lane, 211 F.Supp.3d at 175-76; Davis, 156 F.Supp.3d at 201. To the contrary, “the MPD’s own reliance on ‘training’ and ‘experience’—and the D.C. Circuit’s past reliance on assertions of that type—confirm that actual experience is properly considered as part of the ‘totality of circumstances’ that inform the probable cause determination.” Lane, 211 F.Supp.3d at 175-76 (citing United States v. Washington, 775 F.3d 405, 409 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Cardoza, 713 F.3d at 661; Spencer, 530 F.3d at 1007; United States v. Johnson, 437 F.3d 69, 72 (D.C. Cir. 2006); United States v. Thomas, 989 F.2d 1252, 1255 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (per curiam)).

Defendants next accuse Plaintiffs of “attempt[ing] to quantify probable cause, a practice which the Supreme Court ... expressly condemned” in Harris. Dkt. 8 at 12 n.4 (citing 568 U.S. at 243, 133 S.Ct. 1050). Defendants are, of course, correct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly opined that the test for probable cause “is not reducible to ‘precise definition or quantification.’ ” Harris, 568 U.S. at 243, 133 S.Ct. 1050 (quoting Pringle, 540 U.S. at 371, 124 S.Ct. 795); see also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 235, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). But they are wrong that this admonition has any application here. Plaintiffs’ reliance on the MPD’s “training” and “experience” success rate does not purport to reduce the test for probable cause to a “[f]inely-tuned standard[ ],” Gates, 462 U.S. at 235, 103 S.Ct. 2317, or to “precise definition or quantification,” Pringle, 540 U.S. at 371, 124 S.Ct. 795. Rather, Plaintiffs merely seek to prove the flip side of the practice they challenge; that is, while Officer Volpe and other members of the MPD have repeatedly sworn that drug traffickers “routinely,” “common[ly],” “often,” or “usually” conceal evidence of their criminal activity in their homes and elsewhere, see, e.g., Dkt. 1-1 at 2-3, Plaintiffs seek to show that the actual success rate of these searches “is closer to what one would expect to find at random in searches of homes occupied by D.C. families,” Dkt. 24 at 11 (Am. Compl. ¶ 46). Those alleged success rates, therefore, would have been material to the issuing judge’s probable cause analysis. See Lane, 211 F.Supp.3d at 175-76; Davis, 156 F.Supp.3d at 201.

Finally, Defendants argue that the alleged success rates for the MPD’s “training” and “experience” warrants would, if anything, have bolstered the judge’s finding of probable cause. In particular, they point to Plaintiffs’ allegation that “police officers failed to find any drugs, let alone the drugs they were looking for, in almost 66% of the cases,” Dkt. 24 at 10 (Am. Compl. ¶ 43), and argue that a 33% success rate “is strong evidence of probable cause,” Dkt. 8 at 12. That, however, mis-characterizes Plaintiffs’ allegation; they do not allege that police found what they were looking for 33% of the time, but only that they found “drugs” of some type and some quantity. Defendants ignore Plaintiffs’ remaining allegations, which culminate in the following averment: “Considering the significant usage rate of illicit drugs” in the District, “the MPD’s success rate ... is closer to what one would expect to find at random in searches of homes occupied by D.C. families.” Id. at 11 (Am. Compl. ¶ 46).

More importantly, this argument—like the two above—miscomprehends the' Court’s role at this stage of the proceeding. This is not the occasion for the Court to decide who is correct; to do so would deprive Plaintiffs of the opportunity to obtain discovery to support their allegations. Rather, the Court’s role is merely to decide whether the amended complaint contains sufficient detail to show that Plaintiffs’ core allegation—that the defendant officers knowingly misrepresented that drug dealers “make it a habit to store” the illegal narcotics that they distribute “at their place of residence,” Dkt. 1-1 at 5—is plausible, see Banneker Ventures, 798 F.3d at 1129; Lane, 211 F.Supp.3d at 175. They have met that modest burden. The Court will therefor'e add to the hypothetical affidavit that Volpe and his fellow MPD officers knew based on. their training and experience that drug dealers do not typically store the narcotics that they intend to distribute in their homes.

Third, Plaintiffs allege that Volpe’s affidavit omitted the distinction between “successful drug kingpins and traffickers” and “low-level street dealers,” Dkt. 24 at 13 (Am. Compl. ¶ 58), omitted the fact that the evidence found on Box at most placed him in the “low-level” category, id. at 13, 14 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 55, 58), and omitted the fact that it is “utterly unlikely” that a “training” and “experience” warrant yields the types of “papers,” “records,” “photos,” and similar evidence sought in the Volpe affidavit, id. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 55-56, 58); Dkt. 1-1 at- 2-3, particularly where the suspect • is simply a “street-level drug” dealer, Dkt. 24 at 12-13 (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 54-55). Plaintiffs allege, for example, that, over a one-year period, the “training” and “experience” warrants “failed to locate” the type of “documents or other records” sought here “in over 99% of" the searches, Dkt. 24 at 12 (Am. Compl. ¶ 51).

For the most part, Defendants offer no response to these allegations. They merely assert that “the alleged difference between ‘indigent low-level street dealers’ and ‘big time drug traffickers’ is irrelevant” because the defendant “officers had noway of determining which category ... Box fell under,” Dkt. 8 at 12, and that, whether he “was a criminal mastermind or mere street dealer,” “a reasonably prudent person could conclude that further evidence of ... Box’s criminal conduct could be found in his home,” id. at 13. Both of these contentions, however, merely resist 'Plaintiffs’ factual allegations to the contrary. Because the .Court must accept Plaintiffs’ plausible, non-conclusory allegations of fact at this stage of the proceeding, see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, that tack is unavailing.

The. Court, accordingly, will add' these alleged omitted facts to the hypothetical affidavit; • • ■ '

Fourth, Plaintiffs allege that Volpe failed to inform the issuing judge that alleged drug dealers commonly lie to the police about their home addresses, and instead “give addresses of friends or family who[m] they know to be ‘clean.’ ” Dkt. 24 at 14 (Am. Compl. ¶ 61). Defendants’ motion fails to address this allegation. See Dkt. 8 at 12-13. But, because the Court has already assumed for purposes of the Franks analysis that Box never orally gave the -officers any address, see Dkt. 24 at 7 (Am. Compl. ¶ 27); supra p. 273-74, the Court must conclude that this fourth alleged omission -would have been immaterial. Although Plaintiffs were within their rights to plead in the alternative, 'for purposes of the instant Franks analysis, the Court will exclude this alleged omission from the hypothetical affidavit.

c. Hypothetical Affidavit

Accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, the Court must now .consider how a “hypothetical”, affidavit might have read, omitting any knowingly or recklessly false assertions and adding any knowing or reckless omissions. Thus recreated, the Volpe affidavit would have averred that (1) Box, when arrested, possessed approximately five ounces of marijuana, twenty-nine small plastic sandwich bags, and $180 in cash consisting of nine $20 bills; (2) this quantity of drugs, paraphernalia, and cash suggested that he was a “street-level” dealer; (3) at the time of his arrest, Box was driving a car with Ohio license plates, and he possessed an Ohio identification card; (4) Box had a suspended D.C. driver’s-license (which could have been issued years earlier) that listed his residence as 1054 Quebec Place; (5) MPD officers had visited the Quebec Place residence at least twice in the previous weeks or months and they were told by both Harrison and S.B., S.H., and S.R.’s grandmother that Box did not live there; (6) the actual experience of MPD officers showed that street-level drug dealers do not “make it habit to store” .the illegal narcotics that, they distribute at their homes and, if anything, they are only slightly more likely to have illicit drugs of any kind in their homes than would be found “at random in searches of homes occupied by D.C. families;” and (7) their experience also showed that street-level drug dealers were exceptionally unlikely to keep records, or similar evidence of drug importation, manufacturing, transportation, or distribution in their homes.

For Defendants to prevail on Count Two at this stage of the proceeding, they must be able to.show that this hypothetical affidavit would still have established probable cause to search Plaintiffs’ home for-.the items listed in the warrant—that. is, to search their home for

• drugs and/or narcotics, drug paraphernalia, scales, packaging' and processing materials, safes, containers both locked and unlocked, cash, computers, records, tally sheets, books, receipts, notes, ledgers, bank records, telephone bills, money orders, and other papers documenting ■the importation, purchase, processing ..and manufacturing, ordering, sale, and distribution.of [m]arijuana or any other . illicit drugs. •

Dkt. 1-1 at 1. To do so, the hypothetical affidavit must- establish probable cause to believe that (T) Box resided at the Quebec Place residence; (2) Box’s residence contained non-contraband items listed in the warrant and those items were linked to the crime under investigation; and (3) Box’s residence contained illegal drugs-. As explained below, at least at this-.stage of the proceeding, Defendants’ argument fails, at each step.

First, the Court must consider whether the hypothetical affidavit supplies probable cause to believe that Box lived at the Quebec Place residence. As revised, the affidavit posits that Box was driving a car with.Ohio license plates and was carrying an Ohio identification card and that-the residents ,at the Quebec Place home informed the MPD on two occasions shortly before the search that Box did not live there.- All of this, of course, weighs against a finding of probable cause that Box resided at the Quebec Place home. Defendants counter, however, that Box had a suspended D.C. driver’s license, which listed his address as 1054 Quebec Place, and they argue that this piece of evidence was alone sufficient to establish probable cause that Box .resided at that address, Dkt. .8 at 13.

Defendants are correct that a driver’s license—even a suspended driver’s license—may at times provide probable cause to believe that the driver lives at the address listed -on the license. Plaintiffs do not challenge that general statement; rather, they argue that in this--case that standard is not met. Most significantly, they note that a D.G. driver’s license is valid for eight years, see D.C. Code § 50-1401.01, raising the possibility -that Box had lived at the Quebec Place residence years before his arrest but that' he had long-since moved. Dkt. 11 at 29-30. The possibility that the address listed on Box’s suspended license had grown stale, moreover, was heightened by a number of factors. The fact that his license, had been suspended, for example, could have removed any incentive Box might otherwise have had to update his address, and the fact that he drove a car with Ohio license plates and carried an Ohio identification card created additional doubt about his state of. residence. This doubt, moreover, was only heightened by .the Harrisons’ repeated denials that Box lived at- the Quebec Place residence.

If Box’s D.C. driver’s license had been valid at the time of his arrest, or if his suspended license had been issued' in the recent past, the -Court might well , conclude that the hypothetical Volpe declaration provided sufficient , basis to find probable cause that Box lived at the Quebec Place residence. Furthermore, the Court recognizes that “greater lengths of time should be tolerated in assessing the staleness of information regarding a person’s address;” United States v. Johnson, 437 F.3d 69, 72 (D.C. Cir. 2006). On the present record, however, the Court cannot conclude that the hypothetical Volpe declaration established probable cause that Box still lived at the Quebec Place residence. The Court must assume that the allegations in the amended complaint are true and must draw all reasonable inferences -in favor of Plaintiffs. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Accordingly, without knowing the age of Box’s suspended driver’s license or when it was suspended, the Court must assume that it was issued as long as eight years before Box’s arrest and that it had been suspended years ago. And, if so, these facts would not have provided a sufficient - basis for a reasonable officer to disregard Box’s Ohio license plates and Ohio identification card, to disregard-the •Harrisons’ recent and repeated assertions that Box did not live with them, and to conclude that there was probable cause to believe that Box continued to live at the Quebec Place residence.

Second, the Court must address whether the hypothetical affidavit establishes probable cause to believe that Box’s residence contained' “records” and similar evidence “documenting the importation, purchase, processing and manufacturing, ordering, sale, and distribution of [m]ari- ' juana.” In considering this question, the Court must bear in mind that, where law enforcement seeks to seize “innocuous’ objects” of this type, “special- ‘care’” is required to ensure that the search is “‘conducted in a manner that minimizes unwarranted intrusions -upon privacy.’ ” United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 482 n.11, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976)). This means, most notably, that in order to establish probable cause to search for and to seize “innocuous” items, the affiant must offer reason to believe that those items' will not only be found, but that they are “owned” by the suspect or otherwise “linked” to the relevant crime. Id.

Nothing in the hypothetical affidavit establishes probable cause to reach either of these conclusions. The only basis Volpe offered for believing that’Box’s residence would contain records, cash, cell phones, computers, photos, bank records, telephone bills, and other similar evidence “documenting the importation, purchase, processing and manufacturing, ordering, sale, and distribution” of illicit drugs, Dkt. 1-1 at 1, was his purported “training” and “experience.” Plaintiffs, however, ■ have plausibly alleged that “it is extremely rare, if ever, that such ‘training’ and ‘experience’-based home raids ... yield any such documents or records of drug distribution,” and that, indeed, the MPD has “failed to locate such documents or other records in over 99%” of these searches. Dkt. 24 at 12 (Am. Compl. ¶ 51). Once modified to include this assertion—or anything like it—the hypothetical affidavit does not come close to establishing probable cause to search for the broad array of non-contraband items identified in the warrant.

Third, the Court must consider whether the hypothetical affidavit would establish probable cause to believe that Box kept the illegal drugs that he distributed at his home. Although a closer question, the answer is the same. Plaintiffs do not-argue that the prospect of finding marijuana or other illicit drugs in Box’s home—based on nothing more than Officer Volpe’s “training” and “experience”—was less than 1%, as they argue with respect to the non-contraband records the MPD sought. But they do allege that “in the vast majority of cases in which MPD officers execute” warrants supported only by their “training’’ and “experience,” the “MPD officers do not find the items that they seek.” Dkt. 24 at 10 (Am. Compl. ¶ 42). Here, Volpe’s affidavit did not seek evidence of Box’s personal drug use; it asserted “that persons who distribute illegal narcotics make it a habit to store [those drugs] at their place of residence.” Dkt. 1-1 at 5 (emphasis added). The question, accordingly, is whether his affidavit—as modified in the manner required under Franks—would provide probable cause to believe that the MPD would find drugs evidencing illegal narcotics trafficking at Box’s home. See United States v. Martin, 297 F.3d 1308, 1314 (11th Cir. 2002) (not-' ing that, without a “link between the residence and [the suspected] criminal activity” under investigation, a warrant affidavit does not satisfy the probable cause standard); United States v. Lalor, 996 F.2d 1578, 1583 (4th Cir. 1993) (explaining that, in multiple circuits, “residential searches ha