Court Opinion

ID: 9836764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:14:59.173449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:18.795970
License: Public Domain

EFFRON, Judge
(concurring in part and in the result):
I agree with the majority opinion, except with respect to Issue III. I concur in the result in Issue III, and with the majority’s reliance on the good faith exception. I disagree, however, with that portion of the majority opinion that would suggest the search warrant could be sustained upon a finding of probable cause.
In the present case, the pertinent information was provided by the victims. They had not seen the material sought under the warrant during the previous 5 years, and they had never seen the material at the residence that was the subject of the search. Under these circumstances, the 5-year time lapse stretches the boundaries of reasonableness too far.
The statement provided by the investigative psychologist, profiling appellant as “sexually indiscriminate” of “try-sexual,”1 does not “bridge the gap” between the sighting and the search to save the stale information. Although profiles may be used as a factor to establish probable cause, see United States v. Rugh, 968 F.2d 750 (8th Cir.1992), the cases cited by the Government involved gaps of less than 2 years between the sighting of evidence and application for a warrant. See United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Harvey, 2 F.3d 1318 (3rd Cir.1993). In my view, these cases represent the outer boundaries of the use of profile evidence to “bridge the gap” and they do not warrant a finding of probable cause in the present case.

. The psychologist’s affidavit, included with the application for the search warrant, categorized appellant as " ‘sexually indiscriminant' or ‘try-sexual’ (meaning they will try anything plus everything sexual).”