The question is not just probable cause; it’s whether it was reasonable for the officer to rely on a warrant that is not facially deficient. United States v. Knox, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4791 (10th Cir. Feb. 27, 2018):
In this circuit, we have identified three non-exclusive considerations that help guide a probable cause inquiry, particularly one in which the affiant relies on an informant or other witness’s information: 1) the reliability of the informer, 2) the timeliness of the informer’s allegations, and 3) the nexus between the item to be seized and the place to be searched. See United States v. Pulliam, 748 F.3d 967, 971 (10th Cir. 2014) (reliability); United States v. Snow, 919 F.2d 1458, 1459 (10th Cir. 1990) (timeliness); United States v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1225, 1228 (10th Cir. 2005) (nexus). Our inquiry is not whether the information in paragraph four in fact establishes probable cause that an illegal weapon will be found at 431 Freeman, but rather whether the affidavit is so facially deficient that reliance on a warrant issued in response to that affidavit cannot have been in good faith.