“[T]he trash pulls of April 17, 2008 and April 24, 2008 revealed drug paraphernalia and residue of both cocaine and marijuana suggesting an ongoing packaging, storing or distribution pattern. The search warrant was obtained on May 7, 2008, almost two weeks after the last trash pull, and executed on May 14, 2008, within three weeks of the last trash pull. Under these circumstances the information was not stale.” United States v. Robinson, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102689 (S.D. Fla. December 19, 2008).*<\/p>\n
Landlords had no standing to challenge rental unit inspections of their tenants. Steinhauser v. City of St. Paul, 595 F. Supp. 2d 987 (D. Minn. 2008).*<\/p>\n
The omitted information in the affidavit was material, but it was not intentionally omitted because it would have aided in showing that the information was not stale. Even if alleged false information was omitted and the affidavit reconsidered as reformed, PC would still exist. United States v. Holt, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102769 (M.D. Fla. December 10, 2008).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading