The court in State v. Bailey, Butler App. No. CA2002-03-057, 2003 Ohio 5280, addressed an argument that information in a search warrant was stale. In Bailey, two reliable informants provided the police with information indicating appellant was involved in selling drugs from an apartment and that a controlled buy utilizing marked money was conducted at the apartment by the police and the informants. Within 72 hours of the controlled buy, the police applied for, obtained and executed a warrant to search the apartment for cocaine, money, drug records, lock boxes or safes, drug paraphernalia, weapons and any fruits of the crime. The court addressed the "staleness" argument as follows: "Appellant's argument that the above information was 'stale' in that the drug buy occurred three days prior is without merit. Under these circumstances, where there was ongoing drug activity, we do not find that such a short lapse is substantial. The standard for determining whether probable cause to believe evidence exists in a particular location is 'whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence will be found in a particular place.' Gates at 238. The affidavit was based on ongoing criminal activity and we therefore find that there was evidence to support the conclusion that a fair probability existed that contraband and other evidence was located in the apartment. Accord State v. Latham, Coshocton App. No. 01-CA-1, 2001 Ohio 1556."