was presented with a sufficient basis to believe that the items to be seized were still on the premises. Ruffin argues that the staleness of the facts in the affidavit negated .probable cause and, concomitantly, the validity of the warrant. Dated or “stale” information “may have little value in showing that contraband or evidence is still likely to be found in the place for which the warrant is sought.” United States v. Williams, 124 F.3d 411, 420 (3d Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). We have previously identified several factors to consider in making a staleness determination, including the “[a]ge of the information supporting a warrant application,” “the nature of the crime,” and “the type of evidence” sought. United States v. Harvey, 2 F.3d 1318, 1322 (3d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). Here, less than two weeks lapsed between
holding that an arrest warrant  without a search warrant  does not permit law enforcement authorities to enter a third partys home to legally search for the subject of the arrest warrant holding that it is permissible under the fourth amendment to detain occupants of a residence while executing a search warrant of the residence holding monthsold information supported a warrant to search residence for child pornography noting law enforcement agents opinion that pedophiles rarely dispose of such material holding that a warrant authorizing the search of a residence vehicles at the residence and all persons found in the residence was not overly broad given that search was limited to places were drugs or weapons might be found holding that absent consent or exigent circumstances law enforcement officers cannot legally search for the subject of an arrest warrant in the home of a third party without first obtaining a search warrant