Did the Eighth Circuit erroneously rule, in conflict with this Court's decision in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), that the search warrant for a Chrysler vehicle alleged to be associated with Petitioner stated probable cause, where the supporting affidavit, by a straw affiant, contains no facts making it probable that vehicle currently contained drug-related evidence, owing to the cited confidential informants not being shown to have current, reliable information, the affidavit relying on stale information from a prior, unexecuted search warrant, and the affidavit not making it probable that the Chrysler would even be in the County where the warrant had to be executed, and where earlier-issued the GPS tracking-warrants for other vehicles allegedly associated with Petitioner had similar informant-reliability and basis-of-knowledge defects, and the Chrysler warrant included information from two of those warrants?

Did the Eighth Circuit erroneously rule, in conflict with this Court's decision in Illinois v. Gates, that the search warrant for a Chrysler vehicle alleged to be associated with Petitioner stated probable cause?