KY: Lack of staleness is determined from the totality of circumstances if time not specifically stated

Defendant was snitched off as a drug dealer by his own son as a citizen informant. The specific time of the possession of drugs wasn’t specifically stated, but here it can be ascertained by the totality of circumstances. Stating when something was observed is the far better rule because it removes uncertainty, but it’s not always required as long as the totality shows the information isn’t stale. Abney v. Commonwealth, 2016 Ky. LEXIS 101 (March 17, 2016):

Thus, to the extent that Henson applies more specific requirements to a search-warrant affidavit and, in effect, requires a more rigorous review, it is overruled. A search-warrant affidavit is not rendered invalid simply because it does not include the time and date of any observations on which it relies, provided the totality of the circumstances indicates with reasonable reliability that the evidence sought is located in the place to be searched. That said, it is always the better practice to include such information, as it forecloses any complaint about the staleness of the information.

As to this case, we must hold that the trial court applied the correct standard. We further hold that the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion to suppress because the search warrant was adequately supported by probable cause.