Opinion ID: 2784216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dissipation of Probable Cause

Text: Alternatively, Kruse contends that the warrant lacked probable cause on the grounds that the four-day delay in executing the warrant dissipating any probable cause that existed at the time the warrant was issued. We disagree. We have held similar delays did not cause probable cause to dissipate. In United States v. Tenerelli, -5- 614 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2010) we found that a six-day delay between issuance and execution of a search warrant did not dissipate probable cause because [i]t was reasonable for the officers to conclude that [the defendant] was likely to possess [drugs] at his residence when the search warrant was executed because of [t]he ongoing nature of [drug] distribution. Id. at 770–71; see also United States v. Shegog, 787 F.2d 420, 423 (8th Cir. 1986) (finding that an eight-day delay from issuance of a search warrant to execution of the search did not dissipate probable cause). As we noted above, the finding of marijuana seeds and stems in Kruse's trash on two separate occasions seven days apart supports the conclusion that drugs were present and used consistently in Kruse's apartment. Thus, it would be reasonable for officers, and the issuing magistrate, to believe that contraband would be present in Kruse's apartment a mere four days after the issuance of the warrant.