introduced Young’s lease, which began in January 2003, and Young testified that he moved to the Paris Street residence in January 2003. This was approximately ten months prior to the search, suggesting that the confidential informant’s information was older than even the six months testified to by the detective. Further, the detective testified that the confidential informant never said when he or she observed Young with these quantities of drugs. And, when reporting Young’s prior arrest, the affidavit did not reveal that the arrest occurred nine years previously. Up to this point, and considering the affidavit in conjunction with the omitted facts, we can only conclude that the information was far too stale to establish probable cause. Rodriguez v. State, 297 So,2d 15, 18 (Fla.1974) (<HOLDING>). The affidavit’s recitation of the detective’s
holding that a warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause where it was based almost exclusively on the uncorroborated testimony of an unproven informant holding affidavit insufficient to support probable cause when one cannot learn from the affidavit when the past activities occurred and when the observations were made holding that affidavit was stale and thus failed to establish probable cause to support wiretap holding that the gang evidence was too stale to establish probable cause for a search warrant holding that if sufficient untainted evidence was presented in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause the warrant was nevertheless valid