D.Kan.: SW info was stale, so no good faith exception

“The validity of a warrant is not determined by ‘nit-picking’ discreet portions of the application. Rather, the test is whether, under the totality of the circumstances presented in the affidavit, the issuing judge had a ‘substantial basis’ for determining that probable cause existed. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983); …” This affidavit did not, however, show probable cause because the information was stale: “A magistrate reading the affidavit would not, from the face of the affidavit, be able to reasonably conclude that the requisite nexus between Walker and 1510 N. Vassar was present. United States v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1225, 1228 (10th Cir. 2005). Therefore, Walker’s drug activities in 2007, 2010 and March 2011 cannot support a finding that criminal activity was ongoing at the Vassar residence at the time Officer Henry applied for the search warrant.” So stale, in fact, that the good faith exception does not apply. United States v. Walker, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139238 (D. Kan. October 1, 2014).

Controlled buys of synthetic cannabinoids was probable cause for issuance of a search warrant. Otherwise, it was done in good faith. United States v. Stephens, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139145, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139151 (W.D. Va. October 1, 2014).*

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging defendant’s consent to search where it would have failed. Thompson v. United States, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139435 (N.D. Ga. August 19, 2014).*