of evidence of criminal activity." hi at 671, 529 S.E.2d at 778. The Court held that the search warrant was not stale because the fact that DNA evidence obtained at the crime scene "matched” the defendant's DNA database profile, the information upon which probable cause was based, was "not subject to change over the 32-day period at issue.” Id. 7 . Cases from other jurisdictions support this result. See 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.7(a), at 462 & n.2 (5th ed. 2012); see also State v. One 1981 BMW Auto., 15 Conn.App. 589, 546 A.2d 879, 883 (1988) (noting that "probable cause to arrest, once found, cannot be dissipated by the passage of time” because "[s]tale does not simply mean old”); People v. Geier, 407 Ill.App.3d 553, 348 Ill.Dec. 552, 944 N.E.2d 793, 799 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Graves v. State, 112 Nev. 118, 912 P.2d 234,
holding that probable cause existed to arrest for a seatbelt violation under state law holding that mere delay in pulling a defendant over for a traffic violation does not dissipate probable cause to arrest holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest holding invalid warrant did not create probable cause for arrest holding that under fourth amendment standards for determining probable cause for arrest and probable cause for search and seizure are same