{"id":4161,"date":"2010-06-22T15:11:04","date_gmt":"2010-05-13T00:15:13","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-05-12T19:56:43","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4161","title":{"rendered":"AR: 17 day delay in executing SW did not make it stale where there were ongoing sales from the property"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A 17 day delay between obtaining the search warrant and execution of the search warrant did not make the warrant stale because of evidence of ongoing sales from the premises. The warrant could have become stale, but it did not because probable cause was ongoing. &#8220;To protect the CI, the police delayed serving the search warrant.&#8221; <a href=\"http:\/\/courts.arkansas.gov\/court_opinions\/coa\/2010a\/20100512\/Ingle%20v.%20State.pdf\">Ingle v. State<\/a>, 2010 Ark. App. 409 (May 12, 2010):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We hold, therefore, that the totality of the circumstances establishes that the warrant here was not stale when it was executed. It was executed seventeen days after it was issued, and eighteen days after a controlled buy occurred at the premises. Further, even though it was not included in the affidavit, the CI told the affiant that the residence \u201cwas one of his regular stops\u201d and that he had bought drugs there many times[.]\u201d Therefore, it was not error for the circuit court to determine that the warrant was timely executed two-and-one-half weeks after its issuance, given evidence of the controlled buy and of other drug purchases occurring over a period of time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Recorded telephone calls with the CI in this case were properly admitted into evidence, and they were not obtained by a violation of the Fourth Amendment. <a href=\"http:\/\/weblinks.westlaw.com\/result\/default.aspx?action=Search&amp;cnt=DOC&amp;db=MA-ORSLIP&amp;eq=search&amp;fmqv=c&amp;fn=_top&amp;method=TNC&amp;n=5&amp;origin=Search&amp;query=TO%28ALLSCT+ALLSCTRS+ALLSCTOJ%29&amp;rlt=CLID_QRYRLT42799245318125&amp;rltdb=CLID_DB69471245318125&amp;rlti=1&amp;rp=%2Fsearch%2Fdefault.wl&amp;rs=MAOR1.0&amp;service=Search&amp;sp=MassOF-1001&amp;srch=TRUE&amp;ss=CNT&amp;sskey=CLID_SSSA88487245318125&amp;sv=Split&amp;vr=1.0\">Commonwealth v. Brown<\/a>, 456 Mass. 708, 925 N.E.2d 845 (2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4161\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4161","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4161","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4161"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4161\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4161"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4161"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4161"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}