The affidavit for the search warrant didn’t clearly identify defendant as connected to the property or that there was drug trafficking just from the trash pulls, but it showed that there was drug activity. The court cannot say, however, that the affidavit was so lacking in probable cause that the good faith exception shouldn’t apply: “we cannot say that the officer’s reliance on the warrant was unreasonable.” United States v. Richardson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4028 (11th Cir. Feb. 11, 2019):
As we’ve noted, the affidavit alleged that, on two occasions, drug residue or paraphernalia were found in garbage identified with the residence by mail in the same bag, and that, on a third occasion near the time of the application, a small amount of drug remnants were found in trash in front of the residence — at the very least, indicating more than one isolated violation of drug use. Based on these allegations, we cannot conclude that a warrant would be “so lacking” in probable cause or “so facially deficient” that it would have been entirely unreasonable for an officer to believe, based on the affidavit, that the meth evidence was timely or that the cannabis stem made the meth evidence timely again. Indeed, Richardson cites no precedent to this effect, and we cannot find any. Nor do we even have any precedent addressing how quickly information about drug use or drug trafficking might go stale. Because it is a “close enough question,” and “not an open and shut matter,” the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. See Blake, 868 F.3d at 975. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1191 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding that we may affirm the denial of a motion to suppress on any ground supported by the record).