“The Underwear Drawer”: Why Police Warrants Must Be Fresh, Not Stale

By: John Guidry

You know, police work can be real easy—in a police state. I’m sure the police in China or North Korea don’t have to jump through the hoops that American officers do. In a free society, our judges are supposed to be the gatekeepers. A neutral judge must scrutinize every affidavit before signing a warrant that allows the government to kick down your door.

The Reality of the Raid: Let’s face it: The invasion of personal space is terrifying. The police usually show up late at night when everyone is sleeping.

• The “Mrs. Smith” Rule: Citizens are rarely permitted to get dressed. If you are a woman sleeping in a t-shirt, you will likely remain in that t-shirt while a dozen strange men rifle through your belongings.
• The Excuse: Police claim that if they let you grab a blanket or robe, you might grab a hidden weapon (like Angelina Jolie in Mr. & Mrs. Smith). So, you sit there, half-dressed, while they search your underwear drawer. (And trust me, they search that drawer first).

Did the police raid your home based on old rumors?

Stale evidence kills warrants. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: Barrentine v. State (The 3-Year-Old Tip)

Today’s case, Barrentine v. State, 107 So. 3d 483 (2d DCA 2013), shows just how specific the evidence must be. Barrentine was convicted of animal fighting and possession of a controlled substance after a SWAT raid on his home. The Question: Did the judge have enough evidence to sign the warrant?

The Evidence (The Pile-On): The officer built his case on three things:

1. Neighbor Complaints: Neighbors called police suspected dog/rooster fighting… in 2003 (3 years before the raid).
2. The Surveyor: A land surveyor reported seeing malnourished pit bulls and roosters with missing feathers.
3. Aerial Photos: The Property Appraiser’s website showed dogs confined all over the property.

It sounds like enough for a raid, right? Wrong.

The Ruling: Probable Cause Has an Expiration Date

The Appeals Court overturned the search warrant. Why? Timing is everything.

The Court reasoned that the evidence was “Stale”:

• The Neighbors: Their reports were from 3 years ago. Criminal activity then does not prove criminal activity now.
• The Surveyor: He made a report, but the affidavit didn’t say when he saw the animals. Was it yesterday? Last month? Last year?
• The Photos: The aerial photos were undated.

“Without information establishing that the animals were observed… at some point in the not-too-distant past, the magistrate did not have probable cause.”

John’s 2026 Update: Drones & The “Good Faith” Trap

Note: In 2013, Barrentine won because the timeline was blurry. In 2026, technology fixes the timeline, but the law has a massive loophole.

1. The “Good Faith” Exception (The Real Danger) Even though the court overturned the warrant in Barrentine, they sent the case back for a hearing on “Good Faith” (United States v. Leon).

• The Loophole: If the police officer honestly believed the warrant was valid, and didn’t lie to the judge, the evidence might still be admissible—even if the warrant was technically illegal.
• The 2026 Reality: Courts are increasingly using “Good Faith” to save bad police work. We have to prove the officer was “reckless” or “dishonest” to truly kill the warrant.

2. Drones Replace “Property Appraiser Photos” In Barrentine, they used grainy website photos.

• The Tech: Today, police use Drones and Pole Cameras (cameras mounted on public utility poles facing your house) to get real-time HD footage.
• The Defense: We argue that prolonged, warrantless drone surveillance violates your “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” (the Mosaic Theory). If they watch your backyard for 30 days without a warrant, that is a search.

3. Digital “Staleness” What about digital evidence?

• The Question: If police get a tip that you downloaded illegal images 2 years ago, is that “stale”?
• The Law: Courts often rule that digital files (unlike drugs or roosters) are “permanent,” so a warrant for a computer might be valid even years after the tip. We fight this by arguing that hard drives change hands and data is deleted, requiring fresh probable cause.

Don’t Let Them Raid You on Old News

If the police kicked down your door based on something a neighbor said three years ago, they violated the Constitution. We know how to check the dates and invalidate the warrant.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s inspect the affidavit.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.