United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Diablo
Tate's Addendum to Motion to Suppress evidence seized
from his residence because the search violated the Fourth
Amendment. (Doc. 20). For the following reasons, the Court
DENIES Defendant's Motion.
28, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress evidence found
at his residence because Detective Alcantara's Affidavit
for Search Warrant (the “Affidavit”) did not
contain probable cause. (Doc. 11). Specifically, Defendant
argued that the Affidavit was based solely on evidence
uncovered during a trash-pull. The Court disagreed with
Defendant's interpretation of the Affidavit and denied
his Motion on July 11, 2019. (Doc. 14).
the Court's denial of Defendant's original Motion,
Defendant received additional evidence in the form of
surveillance footage from the Government. Defendant believes
the footage calls into question the truthfulness of the
Affidavit. As such, Defendant requested a hearing under
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
Government filed a Response to Defendant's Addendum on
December 9, 2019. (Doc. 21). The Government argues Defendant
is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because Detective
Alcantara's statement is neither false nor misleading and
the Affidavit contains sufficient facts to establish probable
cause to search Defendant's residence.
after the Government filed its Response, it provided the
Court a copy of the video surveillance. The video is over
seven hours long. It captured the suspect residence where two
vehicles were parked in the driveway. The recording begins
while it is still dark. Around the 1:52:30 mark, a vehicle
arrived at the residence, pulling in and out a couple times.
The driver exited the vehicle and walked towards the house.
Roughly thirty seconds passed before a person walked back to
the vehicle. Within three minutes of arriving on the
recording, the vehicle reversed down the street away from the
next period of activity begins around the 3:50:25 mark when a
dark vehicle slowly drove by the residence. By this time, it
is light out. The vehicle parked on the opposite side of the
street and remained idle before driving away. Minutes later,
the same car came back and parked in the original spot across
the street. The driver exited the vehicle and walked towards
the residence with something in his hand. Within the next two
minutes, two people left the residence and drove the two cars
parked in the driveway away. The dark vehicle remained parked
on the street for over an hour.
Law and Analysis
Standard of Review
Court has previously stated the appropriate standard of
review for typical Fourth Amendment challenges to a search
warrant in its prior Opinion and Order. (Doc. 14). Relevant
here is when may a court question the validity of an
affidavit for search warrant, as there is “a
presumption of validity” in the typical case.
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978). That
questioning arises if the affidavit contains false statements
that are shown to have been made knowingly and intentionally,
or with reckless disregard for the truth, and if those false
statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause.
Id. at 155-56. In such a case, the evidence seized
pursuant to the warrant will be suppressed. Id. at
156. Inaccurate statements that are the result of mere
negligence or innocent mistake however, do not fall within
the framework of Franks. Id. at 171. A
Franks claim entails a two-part analysis: “(1)
whether the defendant has proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that the affidavit contains deliberately or
recklessly false statements and (2) whether the affidavit,
without the false statements, provides the requisite probable
cause to sustain the warrant.” United States v.
Charles, 138 F.3d 257, 263 (6th Cir. 1998).
argues he is entitled to a Franks hearing because
the Affidavit contained false and misleading information. To
be entitled to a hearing, Defendant must satisfy a heavy
burden. United States v. Bennett, 905 F.2d 931, 934
(6th Cir. 1990). Defendant's “allegations must be
more than conclusory. He must point to specific false
statements that he claims were made intentionally or with
reckless disregard for the truth.” Id. (citing
Franks, 438 U.S. at 171). Moreover, Defendant should
accompany his allegations with an offer of proof, such as
“[a]ffidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements
of witnesses.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 171.
False Statements Made Deliberately or Recklessly
claims the following two sentences in the Affidavit are false
and misleading: “During surveillance, Detectives
observed vehicle traffic during the early morning hours at
the address. People would exit the
car, enter the home, and return to the car a short time
later.” (Doc. 11-2, PageID: 46-47) (emphasis added).
According to Defendant, the video surveillance only shows one
car and one person approach the ...