Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Bravo

United States District Court, Eighth Circuit

August 27, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
DANNY JUNIOR BRAVO, Defendant.

ORDER

THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the motion of defendant Danny Junior Bravo (Bravo) to suppress (Filing No. 57). Bravo also seeks a Franks hearing and an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress (Filing No. 58). Bravo is charged, along with defendant Leticia Angela Desman (Desman), with a conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine (Count I) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and the possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine (Count II) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Bravo asserts an April 2, 2013, search warrant for the hotel room at the Comfort Inn in Scottsbluff, Nebraska, and a 2001 Chevy Yukon was based on an application and affidavit of Investigator Brandi Brunz (Investigator Brunz) which intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth omitted essential information. Bravo asserts if the withheld information would have been included in the application and affidavit, the Scottsbluff County Judge would not have issued the search warrant.

In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the Supreme Court defined a limited exception to the presumptive validity of an affidavit supporting a search warrant or wire interception order. The Court held that, if the government intentionally includes material false statements in the application or affidavit or omits material statements with a reckless disregard for the truth that is the legal equivalent of intentional falsehood, a court reviewing a motion to suppress must "set aside those statements and then review the remaining portions of the affidavits to see if what remains [is] sufficient to establish probable cause" or include such omitted statements to determine whether there would be probable cause to issue the warrant. United States v. Garcia, 785 F.2d 214, 222 (8th Cir. 1986). As stated by the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Falls, 34 F.3d 674 (8th Cir. 1994):

The defendant may challenge a facially sufficient affidavit by showing that the facts included in the affidavit are false or were made in reckless disregard of the truth, or that facts were omitted with the intent to mislead or in reckless disregard of whether it was misleading. The reviewing court must then determine whether, either absent the false material or supplemented with the omitted material, the remaining contents of the affidavit are sufficient to establish probable cause. If the remaining contents are insufficient to establish probable cause, the warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search suppressed.

Id. at 681 (citations omitted). See also United States v. Montes-Medina, 570 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Williams, 477 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2007).

To succeed in a Franks -type challenge to the validity of a search warrant, a defendant bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the affiant, either knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard of the truth, included a false statement within the warrant affidavit. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56; United States v. Williams, 981 F.2d 1003, 1005 (8th Cir. 1992). The same analysis applies to omissions of fact. The defendant must show that the facts were omitted with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they make, the affidavit misleading. United States v. Humphreys, 982 F.2d 254, 258 n.2 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Reivich, 793 F.2d 957, 960-61 (8th Cir. 1986); United States v. Leuth, 807 F.2d 719, 726 (8th Cir. 1986). The reviewing court must then determine whether, either absent the false material or supplemented with the omitted material, the affidavit's remaining contents are sufficient to establish probable cause. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 156.

In order to be entitled to a Franks hearing, the Eighth Circuit has held that the defendant must satisfy two requirements:

First, the defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing of an intentional or reckless falsehood in the affidavit. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 [98 S.Ct. at 2676]. "The substantiality requirement is not lightly met." United States v. Wajda, 810 F.2d 754, 759 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1040 [107 S.Ct. 1981 , 95 L.Ed.2d 821](1987). "Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient." Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 [98 S.Ct. at 2684]. Second, the allegedly false statements must be necessary to the finding of probable cause. Id. at 156 [98 S.Ct. at 2677].

United States v. Schenk, 983 F.2d 876, 879 (8th Cir. 1993). If these requirements are not met, no Franks hearing is required. Wajda, 810 F.2d at 759.

Bravo asserts Investigator Brunz omitted from the affidavit for the search warrant the following information regarding the confidential informant (CI), now identified as Christine Castellaw (Castellaw):

1. Castellaw gave a proffer statement to law enforcement on October 30, 2012, regarding methamphetamine deliveries, wherein she revealed she was a methamphetamine user since 2005 and last used a week before her arrest on September 20, 2012. Further, in the interview Castellaw admitted she lied on an ATF Form 4473 when purchasing handguns. During such interview, Castellaw did not identify Bravo as a source of her methamphetamine.
2. Castellaw violated the conditions of her pretrial release by submitting a urine specimen that tested positive for methamphetamine on January 7, 2013.
3. Investigator Brunz knew that Castellaw was using methamphetamine in 2013.

Bravo asserts omitting the above information from the affidavit, which goes to the credibility and reliability of the CI Castellaw, would preclude the county judge finding there ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.