The defendant ran a \u201cchop shop\u201d that also was a drug distribution point that apparently had been ongoing for eight years. Three week old information about a trailer load of marijuana having come in was not stale under the circumstances. United States v. Cruz-Lopez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131267 (W.D. Ky. July 28, 2011):<\/p>\n
The task of determining whether information contained in a search warrant affidavit has become stale requires the Court to do more than merely conduct an \u201carbitrary accounting [of] days on a calendar….\u201d Spikes, 158 F.3d at 923-24. Rather, the Court must take into account factors such as: (1) the character of the crime (chance encounter or regenerating conspiracy); (2) the nature of the criminal (nomadic or entrenched); (3) the items to be seized (perishable or readily transferrable or enduring); and (4) the place to be searched (a secure operational base or a mere forum of convenience). … <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A child abuse victim\u2019s report that defendant had child pornography on his computer that he made the child look at was probable cause for a search warrant for the computer and the house. State v. Roggenbuck<\/a>, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1520 (November 15, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s claim that a jail monitoring telephone calls violated the state wiretapping statute was not raised until appeal and is waived, but defendant would lose on the merits anyway because he consented to speaking on the phone knowing that calls were recorded. State v. Smith<\/a>, 2011 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 830 (November 14, 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading