Opinion ID: 198347
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Facially Deficient Warrant

Text: 20 According to Owens, it was unreasonable for the executing officers to rely on a warrant that he characterizes as so facially deficient as to be bare bones. In particular, Owens complains that the affidavit demonstrated neither the recency of the information relied upon nor a nexus between the firearms and 26 Parsons Avenue. We disagree. 21 Despite Owens's complaints, the affidavit was sufficiently current because it stated that an active warrant existed for Owens, that an informant is cooperating (emphasis added) with Boston police, and that the informant described a Cole Street address as being used (emphasis added) by Owens in his drug business. From this, the executing officers could reasonably have inferred that the informant's data were recent and described an ongoing drug operation and access to firearms. Cf. United States v. Zayas-Diaz, 95 F.3d 105, 111 (1st Cir.1996) (affidavit not stale because references by informant were in the present tense and therefore implied regular ongoing transactions); United States v. Schaefer, 87 F.3d 562, 568 (1st Cir.1996) ([I]t is common ground that drug conspiracies tend to be ongoing operations, rendering timely information that might, in other contexts, be regarded as stale.). 22 Owens's complaint that the affidavit failed to establish any nexus between the firearms and 26 Parsons Avenue similarly fails. The affidavit recited that Owens was wanted for murder, had numerous firearms, and rented a house at 26 Parsons Avenue. Based on this information, it was reasonable for the executing officers to believe that firearms would be found at 26 Parsons Avenue. Cf. United States v. Procopio, 88 F.3d 21, 28 (1st Cir.) (nexus between evidence of crime and address to be searched sufficiently established where affidavit recited that suspect lived at that address), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1046, 117 S.Ct. 620, 136 L.Ed.2d 543 (1996). 23