type of criminal activity involved, the time elapsing between the occurrence of the events set out in the affidavit and the time the search warrant was issued.” McKissick v. State, 209 S.W.3d 205, 214 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd). However, “[w]hen the affidavit recites facts indicating activity of a protracted and continuous nature — ie., a course of conduct— the passage of time becomes less significant.” Id. (citing Lockett v. State, 879 S.W.2d 184, 189 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd)). An affiant may use hearsay to show probable cause so long as there is a substantial basis for crediting it. Wilkerson v. State, 726 S.W.2d 542, 545 (Tex.Crim. App.1986) (quoting Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tex.Crim.App.1983)); Jones, 338 S.W.3d at 734-35 (<HOLDING>); McKissick, 209 S.W.3d at 212 (holding task of
holding that there is a rebuttable presumption that information imparted by a citizen informant is generally reliable holding that information from confidential informant was reliable and credible where affidavit referred to previous instances in which informant provided correct information to police affiants own investigation and controlled buy of contraband confirmed information and second informant supplied same information to police recognizing affiants averments that informant had assisted police in apprehension of another drug felon in determining reliability of informant holding that information of criminal activity given by a known reliable informant is enough to sustain a terry stop holding affidavit insufficient when it failed to state when affiant received information from informant when informant obtained information or when described incident took place