M.D.Tenn.: A delivery one week before the SW was supported by 3 known prior sales in 4 months

“Here, the last purchase was made one week before the application for the search warrant. By itself, this does not render the information from the CI stale. … Besides, ‘even if a significant period of time elapsed, it is possible the magistrate judge may infer that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing.’ United States v. Pinson, 321 F.3d 558, 565 (6th Cir. 2003). [¶] Such an inference could easily be made in this case. Three purchases were made from two individuals in the residence in a four month period. This suggests not a ‘chance encounter in the night,’ but rather purchases from ‘a secure operational base.’” United States v. Abdalla, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148321 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2018).

Defendant’s pro se 2255 was based on a claim of failure to investigate whether the search warrant was not particular. Defense counsel actually did and rejected that argument as frivolous.
United States v. Thomas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147880 (D. Vt. Aug. 30, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Staleness. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.