\u201cA substantial basis existed for the court to determine probable cause existed on the face of the warrant affidavit.\u201d It was, however, sloppy and partly misleading, but, on the totality there is no Franks violation. United States v. Johnson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234489 (N.D. Iowa Nov. 21, 2020), adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233243 (N.D. Iowa Dec. 11, 2020)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Ultimately, I do not find that law enforcement acted intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth in drafting the affidavit to include the misleading statements. The affidavit is sloppy. It omits a lot of information relevant to probable cause\u2014including facts bolstering the existence of probable cause, such as the information from SOI or that public records confirmed where Johnson lived. Law enforcement were on a time crunch to complete the affidavit, since they did not search Individuals 1 and 2’s residence until around 4:00 p.m., and they wanted to obtain the search warrant before Individuals 1 and 2 delivered the package to Johnson at their usual time, around 8:30 p.m. It appears that to save time, officers summarized the information learned from Individuals 1 and 2 without distinction and omitted the circumstances under which Individuals 1 and 2 identified Defendant as the recipient of the package. Even if the affidavit had corrected the misleading statements and set forth the facts in better detail, the affidavit would have established the existence of probable cause. Here, law enforcement knew much more information than contained in the affidavit, and they clearly had probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. At most, law enforcement acted negligently in drafting the warrant, and “[i]naccurate statements that result from negligence \u2026 are insufficient to trigger relief under Franks.” United States v. Stevens, 530 F.3d 714, 718 (8th Cir. 2008).<\/p>
Similarly, I do not find that law enforcement acted with the requisite mens rea in omitting the information about Individual 2’s criminal history, the August 2 surveillance, Individuals 1 and 2’s romantic relationship, and the plan for Individual 2 to bring Johnson $500. As noted, the affidavit omitted a lot of information\u2014more supporting probable cause than detracting from it. In addition, the omitted information was not critical to a probable-cause finding. Even if it had been included in the affidavit, the affidavit would still have established probable cause.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cA substantial basis existed for the court to determine probable cause existed on the face of the warrant affidavit.\u201d It was, however, sloppy and partly misleading, but, on the totality there is no Franks violation. United States v. Johnson, 2020 … Continue reading