\u201cHere, the last purchase was made one week before the application for the search warrant. By itself, this does not render the information from the CI stale. … Besides, \u2018even if a significant period of time elapsed, it is possible the magistrate judge may infer that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing.\u2019 United States v. Pinson, 321 F.3d 558, 565 (6th Cir. 2003). [\u00b6] Such an inference could easily be made in this case. Three purchases were made from two individuals in the residence in a four month period. This suggests not a \u2018chance encounter in the night,\u2019 but rather purchases from \u2018a secure operational base.\u2019\u201d United States v. Abdalla, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148321 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2018).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s pro se 2255 was based on a claim of failure to investigate whether the search warrant was not particular. Defense counsel actually did and rejected that argument as frivolous.
\nUnited States v. Thomas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147880 (D. Vt. Aug. 30, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cHere, the last purchase was made one week before the application for the search warrant. By itself, this does not render the information from the CI stale. … Besides, \u2018even if a significant period of time elapsed, it is possible … Continue reading