need not determine that the evidence sought is in fact on the premises to be searched, or that the evidence is more likely than not to be found where the search takes place. The magistrate need only conclude that it would be reasonable to seek the evidence in the place indicated in the affidavit. United States v. Peacock, 761 F.2d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir.1985) (emphasis in original, citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 109 S.Ct. 2237, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989). Last, this Court has concluded that in cases involving ongoing narcotics businesses, lapses of several months — and up to two years in certain circumstances— are not sufficient to render the information in an affidavit too stale to support probable cause. See Pitts, 6 F.3d at 1369-70 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Greany, 929 F.2d 523, 525
holding that affidavit was stale and thus failed to establish probable cause to support wiretap holding that fourmonth lapse between crack sale involving defendant in different location and affidavit was not enough to render information stale where affidavit supported inference that defendant was more than a onetime drug seller holding that informants personal observation of drug use by defendant six weeks prior to warrant not stale where affidavit included facts consistent with protracted and continuous use holding that an affidavit did not provide probable cause sufficient to validate a warrant where the affidavit stated an incorrect date uncontradicted by any other specific fact in the affidavit holding that even if information in an affidavit was provided in reckless disregard of the truth appropriate course of action is to sever that information from the affidavit and determine whether sufficient information remained in order for the magistrate to find probable cause