referring to those remote times was stale, and, on that ground as well, it provided no reason for the magistrate to believe that either possession of pornography or indecency with a child was taking place at appellant’s residence on the date the affidavit was issued. See Sgro, 287 U.S. at 210, 53 S.Ct. at 140 (requiring proof in affidavit to be of facts “so closely related” to time of issuance of warrant as to “justify a finding of probable cause at that time”); Davis, 202 S.W.3d at 157 n. 23 (“It is the officer’s identification of the chemical odor with the manufacture of methamphetamine that lends sufficient specificity as to make reasonably available the inference that such activity is going on at that particular premises at that particular time.”); Peltier, 626 S.W.2d at 32 (<HOLDING>). The only facts referenced in the affidavit
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 observations made a during prior illegal search should not have been included in the affidavit for the search warrant holding that affidavit was stale and thus failed to establish probable cause to support wiretap 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 supported probable cause determination when the affidavit stated only that an occupant of defendants home subscribed to child pornography egroup