W.D.Pa.: Home surveillance system recordings were target of SW, and staleness wasn’t a valid objection

Age alone doesn’t determine staleness; it’s the totality. Here, defendant provided an alibi to a murder and the police learned he had a surveillance system at home. It was reasonable to conclude that evidence would still be found by the time the search warrant was sought. United States v. Ruffin, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113214 (W.D. Pa. August 15, 2014):

Applying these considerations, Court finds that the information provided by Detective Feeney in his April 22, 2013 Affidavit of Probable Cause was not stale. In his Affidavit, Detective Feeney presented in detail the relevant timeline for review by the magistrate judge who found that there was probable cause to issue the search warrant. A review of this information reflects a measured investigation without unnecessary delay: the detectives promptly applied for the search warrant after they became aware that potential evidence in a murder investigation existed at 704 East 14th Avenue. This information presented the magistrate judge with a substantial basis for determining that probable cause existed. Moreover, the passage of time between which Detective Towne first observed the surveillance system and the issuing authority approved Detective Feeney’s application (i.e., a mere ten days) was not so unreasonable as to render the information stale for purposes of determining whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause. The gap is even less—seven days—when considered from the date that Ruffin first provided his alibi defense. Nevertheless, the Court recognizes that age alone does not determine staleness.

But even when considering the other relevant factors, the Court cannot conclude that the information was stale. The Court recognizes that the “nature of crime” is not a continuous event such as protracted narcotics operation; however, the type of evidence sought by the search warrant provided a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime would be found or recovered. As Detective Feeney made clear in his Affidavit of Probable Cause: In “[his] training and experience dealing with surveillance video and multiple recoveries of video admitted into evidence … the videos have usually all been recovered and stored within a recording device” and “multi-camera systems are] usually recorded digitally onto a DVR and stored for subsequent review.” (ECF No. 58-1 at 3). With this information, the magistrate properly approved the search warrant application. Accordingly, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds the search warrant was supported by probable cause.