(8th Cir.2007). 71 .See, e.g., United States v. Luloff, 15 F.3d 763, 768 (8th Cir.1994). In Luloff, the defendant moved to suppress evidence seized during the search of his residence. The officers stated that the inference to believe there would be evidence of drug trafficking at the home was based on their experience. Id. Unlike the present case, the affidavit supporting the warrant also contained information, provided by reliable witnesses and informants, that tended to evidence that the defendant continued to engage in repetitive drug trafficking activity for almost a year prior to the search of his home, and also that such activity had taken place in the home to be searched. Id. 72 . See, e.g., United States v. Pruett, 501 F.3d 976, 982 (8th Cir.2007) (overruled on other grounds) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Carpenter, 341 F.3d 666, 671
holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed tp mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity holding that the warrant application at issue did not specifically mention the presence of criminal activity at defendants residence but that the executing officers reasonably relied on 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 that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room for evidence of drug activity even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity