had entered the curtilage of Wright’s residence without a warrant, the district court held that the state-court judge would have concluded that the warrant affidavit was tainted by an unconstitutional search. We have stated, however, that the mere fact that an affidavit contains facts gained through an illegal search does not necessarily require that the search warrant be voided. United States v. Jenkins, 396 F.3d 751, 760 (6th Cir.2005). Similar to the analysis in Franks, we have held that where a warrant affidavit contains both tainted and untainted information, a court must consider “the sufficiency of the untainted affidavit to see if probable cause exists without the tainted information.” Id.; see also United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705, 719, 104 S.Ct. 3296, 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984) (<HOLDING>). In this case, as we noted above, the search
holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit holding that if sufficient untainted evidence was presented in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause the warrant was nevertheless valid holding that the gang evidence was too stale to establish probable cause for a search warrant holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant where the officers corroboration of events that occurred during the controlled buy as set forth in the affidavit provide sufficient probable cause