The 71-page affidavit for search warrant here did not go stale before issuance. There was plenty of information about an ongoing drug operation. Between then and when the officers decided to get a search warrant, the original information hadn’t gone stale. The nature of the drug operation was ongoing and logically still would be. “[W]hy should law enforcement (or anyone else for that matter) think the subject matter radically changed to innocent family banter a couple of months later?” Nexus was also shown. United States v. Dawson, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224421 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 20, 2019):
This is not how consideration of the totality of the circumstances works. Since the law prescribes no specific quantum of proof to trigger a judicial decision on a search warrant, the content of contacts and communications always matters. And it does in a very significant way here. As noted above, law enforcement identified Dawson by his own words and deeds as a suspected active participant in the targeted drug trafficking network. He shows through his own words and deeds that he is in the thick of things. That law enforcement interprets Dawson’s ongoing contacts with one of his co-defendants during the two months leading up to the search as being consistent with their ongoing drug trafficking relationship finds strong support in simple logic. If earlier in the year Dawson is talking with co-defendant Robinson about drug trafficking and surveillance provides an additional connection between him and suspected drug trafficking activity, why should law enforcement (or anyone else for that matter) think the subject matter radically changed to innocent family banter a couple of months later?