Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): drug trafficking activity and not mere possession. Information related to drug trafficking does not grow stale as quickly as information regarding mere possession. Payne, 181 F.3d at 790. Further, in rejecting the defendant’s staleness arguments, the Court in Murphy noted that the information provided by the task force agent [to the issuing judicial officer] and the execution of the search occurred on the same day. Murphy, 241 F.3d at 458. In any event, under the standard enunciated in Spikes, we believe a close question exists as to whether the information in the affidavit, alleging that an unnamed Cl had seen Defendant possess an unspecified amount of cocaine at least two days before the warrant was obtained and executed, had grown stale. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (<HOLDING>). However, Defendant’s probable cause argument 
 Holding statements: (A) holding anticipatory warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause because at time warrant was issued the contraband was not on a sure course to the place to be searched and there was no assurance defendant would take contraband to that place (B) holding that probable cause inquiry is whether considering totality of the circumstances there is a fair probability that contraband  will be found in a particular place (C) holding reasonable suspicion is based on totality of circumstances (D) recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest (E) holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable
Output (English): holding anticipatory warrant was invalid for lack of probable cause because at time warrant was issued the contraband was not on a sure course to the place to be searched and there was no assurance defendant would take contraband to that place