State, 751 So.2d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), concerned a “small amount of marijuana ... consistent with personal use,” State v. Gross, 833 So.2d 777, 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), which did “not suggest a pattern of continuous drug activity.” Raulerson, 714 So.2d at 537. Indeed, the court in Raulerson contrasted it with “those cases involving discovery of narcotics from a one-time trash pull, where additional information was included in the affidavits [that] suggested patterns of continuous drug activity,” id., such as State v. Mayes, 666 So.2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Scott v. State, 559 So.2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), both of which combined a single trash pull with police surveillance that corroborated an anonymous tip. See also United States v. Sumpter, 669 F.2d 1215, 1221 (8th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Biondich, 652 F.2d 743 (8th
holding that a vehicle may be seized without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that it is subject to forfeiture 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 affidavit is inadequate if it fails to disclose facts which would enable the magistrate to ascertain from the affidavit that the event upon which the probable cause was founded was not so remote as to render it ineffective holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it holding that a single trash pull might be sufficient but it helps if other facts bolster the sufficiency of the affidavit in establishing probable cause to believe that illegal drugs would be found