Cited by

that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,” (quotation omitted), because a search-warrant affidavit must include evidence of “facts so 6 closely related to the time of the issue of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time,” (quotation omitted).

(citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2332 (1983)).

To evaluate the informant’s credibility, the district court “should consider the ‘basis of knowledge’ and ‘veracity’ of the informant supplying hearsay information.” (d 744, 750 (Minn. 1998)).

We consider whether the information presented in the affidavits provided to support probable cause presents “specific facts to establish a direct connection between the alleged criminal activity and the site to be searched.”

y that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,” (quotation omitted), because a search-warrant affidavit must include evidence of “facts so closely related to 6 the time of the issue of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time,” (quotation omitted).

(“The proof must be of facts so closely related to the time of the issue of the warrant as to justify a finding of probable cause at that time.” (quotation omitted)).

d 744, 750 (Minn. 1998) (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S. Ct. at 2332).

See, (holding that no probable cause was established to search a defendant’s residence when the supporting affidavit did not allege that the defendant ever arranged, sold, or distributed drugs, including from her home); –19 (Minn. App. 1996) (holding that the issuing jud

n.2 (Minn. 1998); -33 (Minn. 1984).

But our consideration is limited to the information presented in the affidavit in support of the search warrant, and Detective Sweitzer’s affidavit says nothing about the search of apartment 304 besides his conversation with the resident.

There must be “a direct connection, or nexus, between the alleged crime and the particular place to be searched, particularly in cases involving the search of a residence for evidence of drug activity.” -48 (Minn. 1998).

Yarbrough argues that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish a “direct connection,” or nexus, between his alleged criminal activity and the place to be searched.

2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment, § 3.7(d) (4th ed. 2004).

We consider whether the information presented in the affidavits provided to support probable cause presents “specific facts to establish a direct connection between the alleged criminal activity and the site to be searched.”

(citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 , 103 S.Ct.

The affidavit must supply specific facts to establish a “direct connection, or nexus,” between the crime alleged and the place to be searched, “particularly in cases involving the search of a residence for evidence of drug activity.” -48 (Minn.1998), Because a stale factual basis may invalidate a search warrant, id.

Nonetheless, in examining the issuing judge’s basis for finding probable cause, we look only to information presented in the affidavit and not to information that the police possessed but did not present in the affidavit to determine whether there were “specific facts to establish a direct connection between the alleged criminal activity and the site to be searched.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court “has historically required a direct connection, or nexus, between the alleged crime and the particular place to be searched.”

Appellant argues that the affidavit supplied by Sergeant Christensen as part of the warrant application was too subjective, vague and conclusory to justify issuance of the second warrant for the seizure of the plastic female head sex toy, as-support for this argument.

“Elements bearing on this probability include information linking the crime to the place to be searched and the freshness of the information.”

(“ ‘[T]he proof must be * * * closely related to the time of the issue of the warrant * * * to justify a finding of probable cause at that time.’ ” (quoting Sgro v. United States, 287 U.S. 206, 210 , 53 S.Ct.