D.Vt.: Reasonable inference from facts not willfully “false” under Franks

The officer’s statement was not willfully or recklessly “false” for Franks purposes because it was a reasonable inference based on available information. The warrant was for drugs and it was sufficiently particular. In any event, the good faith exception would save it. United States v. Zuber, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104031 (D. Vt. July 25, 2013).*

“The totality of circumstances shows that defendant voluntarily consented to let Rose search the car. Once defendant agreed to stay and answer questions, Rose asked about guns and drugs and, in short order, asked for permission to search the car. Defendant unequivocally gave permission, responding without hesitation (and rather enthusiastically) to Rose’s request.” United States v. Aispuro, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103379 (D. Kan. July 24, 2013).*

The officer had reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was involved in alien smuggling. There was also reasonable suspicion from the source of the rental cars being well known to the Border Patrol to be involved in alien smuggling, even though it was a subsidiary of Avis. United States v. Bautista-Villanueva, 524 Fed. Appx. 476 (11th Cir. 2013).*