CA10: That officer could have provided false affidavit is not a ‘substantial preliminary showing’ for Franks

“Velarde-Pavia has offered no evidence that Officer Juarez lied in his affidavit. Rather than make the needed ‘substantial preliminary showing,’ Velarde-Pavia only speculates that Officer Juarez could be lying–that is not enough.” As to informant hearsay, the affidavit for the warrant supported the CI’s veracity, showing his experience with three controlled buys and the fact he was involved in activity with defendant within 72 hours of the issuance of the warrant. United States v. Velarde-Pavia, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 935 (10th Cir. Jan. 12, 2022).

There was reasonable suspicion on the totality of circumstances. Defendant’s flight alone wasn’t objectively reasonable suspicion, but here it helped turn otherwise potentially innocent observations into reasonable suspicion. United States v. Ballance, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 937 (10th Cir. Jan. 12, 2022).

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.