The nine-month-old information about defendant having 40,000 pills and $900,000 in cash in his house was not stale, despite the fact there were no facts of anything from then until the warrant issued. United States v. Costa, 736 F. Supp. 2d 859 (D. Del. 2010):<\/p>\n
Considering this authority in light of the record at bar, the court finds that the information in the affidavit is not stale. With respect to the \u201cnature of the crime,\u201d the factual allegations in the affidavit, along with the normal inferences that can be drawn from those allegations, demonstrate that defendant was engaged, over several months in 2009, in a significant illegal drug distribution operation involving over 40,000 pills and approximately $900,000. Accordingly, defendant\u2019s continuous course of conduct in a large scale drug operation made it reasonable to conclude that the illegal drug sales would continue beyond September 2009.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The judge\u2019s signing the search warrant as \u201cp.m.\u201d when it should have been \u201ca.m.\u201d was a fatal error under Tennessee law. The affidavit for the warrant was otherwise issued with probable cause, was not stale, and showed nexus. State v. Hayes<\/a>, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 729 (August 18, 2010).*<\/p>\n
A Fourth Amendment violation can be a part of a malicious prosecution claim. Grider v. City of Auburn<\/a>, 618 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading