Cited by

“[T]he continuity of the crime is the most important factor in determining the staleness issue.” (citation omitted).

In State v. Yaritz, the supreme court determined that a warrant executed six days after it was issued was not stale because the affidavit “indicate[d] that defendant was in the business of selling drugs and that he had been doing it on a continuing basis.”

“Whether a delay in executing a search warrant is unconstitutional depends on whether the probable cause recited in the affidavit still exists at the time of execution of the warrant—that is, whether it is still likely that the items sought will be found in the place to be searched.”

But Thompson argues that the “evidence is not substantial enough under the totality of the circumstances to constitu te a substantial connection bet ween [Thompson] and the home.” To support his argument, Thompson draws this court’s

We will affirm an issuing judge’s probable cause determination if “the probable cause recited in the affidavit still exists at the time of execution of the warrant.”

N.W.2d 710, 712–13 (Minn. 1982); a gap of two years between the observation of photographs, books, and magazines depicting child pornography and the home search did not render the observation stale in Jannetta, d at 194; a and a

In State v. Yaritz, the supreme court concluded that a sufficient nexus existed because the supporting affidavit for the warrant indicated that “two controlled sales were arranged by telephone, defendant’s house was under surveillance[,] and defendant was observed going straight from his house to the place where the sale took place.”

was a sufficient nexus where the affidavit established that the defendant was “involved in the drug business as a wholesaler, that he lived in a residence in Austin, that he had two cars, and that after arranging on the telephone to sell a large amount of marijuana to an undercover officer he left his house, drove around Austin, then drove to Albert Lea and made the sale”); (concluding that there was a sufficient nexus because the supporting affidavit for the search warrant indicated that “two c

In State v. Yaritz, on similar facts to this case, the suprem e court held that probable cause existed six days after the warrant was issued because “the affidavit here indicates that defendant was in the business of selling drugs and that he had been doing it on a conti nuing basis.”

(holding sufficient nexus to the defendant’s residence in part because large amounts of marijuana were discovered on his land); (holding that nexus was established when the defendant went straight from his home to a drug sale immediately after arranging the sale by telephone).

“Relevant circumstances include the character of the crime, the character of the criminal, the character of the thing to be seized, and the character of the place to be searched.” King, d at 401 ().

- 16 (Minn. 1979) (reviewing the delay for statutory and constitutional violations).

But the district court was not “obliged to conclude that suppression of the fruits of the search was necessary.” see also Lien, d at 840 (denying appellant’s request to suppress evidence when the nighttime execution of the search warrant was a statutory violation).

alendar but of variables that do not punch a clock: the character of the crime (chance encounter in the night or regenerating conspiracy?), of the criminal (nomadic or entrenched?), of the thing to be seized (perishable and easily transferable or of enduring utility to its holder?), of the place to be searched (mere criminal forum of convenience or secure operational base?), -17 (Minn. 1979) (quoting Andresen v. State, 24 Md.App.

.1984) (holding that clear “object-place nexus” between drug dealing and residence searched was established by the fact that the sale actually occurred at the residence); -79 (Minn.1982) (establishing direct connection to residence when suspect was seen to enter her residence shortly after picking up package authorities knew to contain drugs); (concluding that sufficient nexus to residence was established because, immediately after the defendant arranged a sale of drugs by telephone, he went str

nd a search of defendant’s neighbor’s land resulted in the discovery of marijuana in containers with defendant’s name or initials); -79 (Minn.1982) (sufficient nexus because the affidavit indicated that the authorities observed defendant entering her residence shortly after picking up a mailed package which authorities knew contained hashish); (sufficient nexus because the supporting affidavit for the warrant indicated that after defendant arranged two controlled sales by telephone, law enforcem

the issue was whether the *674 probable cause that supported the warrant when issued still existed 6 days later when the warrant was executed.

alendar but of variables that do not punch a clock: the character of the crime (chance encounter in the night or regenerating conspiracy?), of the criminal (nomadic or entrenched?), of the thing to be seized (perishable and easily transferable or of enduring utility to its holder?), of the place to be searched (mere criminal forum of convenience or secure operational base?), (quoting Andresen v. State, 24 Md.

Minnesota cases dealing with the issue of probable cause to believe that items will be found in a search of a particular place include:

1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.7(d) (1978 and 1984 Supp.).

Minnesota cases dealing with the issue of probable cause to believe that items will be found in a search of a (in sale-of-contraband case some additional fact is needed to support inference that seller stores contraband at his residence; that was provided by fact that during two controlled buys of drugs from the defendant, the defendant was observed on each occasion going straight from his house to the place where