2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-6-2009 

# U SA v . J ohn Gon z ale z, Jr

. P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3491

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . J o hn Gonzalez, Jr

. " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 512. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/512NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 3491 

### UN I TE D S TA TE S O F A ME RI CA

v. DANI ELRI VE RA a/k/a J ohnny

Vers ac e a/k/a J ohnny

Go nzal ez a/k/a J ohnny

To rr es JO HNAN T H O N YG O N Z A L E Z , JR ., Ap p e l l ant A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal A ct i on N o. 2- 07- cr - 00023- 001) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember30, 2009 B efor e: R E N D E L L , A M B R O and W E I S C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: O ct ober6, 2009)

OP I NI ONWh i l e d o c k e t e d a s “ G o n z a l e z , ” a l l o f A p p e l l a n t ’ s m o v i n g p a p e r s u s e “ G o n z a l e s . ” We 1 w i l l us e the name as docket ed. 2 A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge Jo h n A n th o n yG o n z a lez , Jr., a p p e a ls th e o rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt d e n y in g h is 1 m oti on t o sup press ph y si cal evidence. H e cl ai m s the C ou rterr ed b yrefusi ng t o sup press evi dence i n l i ghtof tw o al l eged de fi ci enci es i n the af fi davi ts uppor t i ng the s ear ch w arr ant : ( 1) a l ack of

s uffi ci ents t at ement s addr es s i ng the r el i abi l i tyof a dog s ni ff; and ( 2) s t at ement s i n vi ol at i on of Franks v. D el aw are , 438 U . S. 154 ( 1978) . Forthe r eas ons below , w e affirm the o rderof the D i stri ctC ou rtden y i ng the m oti on t o sup press . I. F a cts O n J ul y4, 2006, Phi l adel phi a Pol i ce O ffi cerR i char d M art i nez r ece i ved i nform at i on fr om an i nform antthatl ar ge quant i t i es of coc ai ne w er e bei ng s t or ed i n l ocker J 0819 atthe Publ i c St or age f aci l i tyat2700 G r antA venue i n Phi l adel phi a. T he i nform ant p rov ided d etail ed inf

o rm ati o n ab o u t th e p ac k ag ing o f th e c o ca ine, st ati n g that there w ere ki l ogr am bri cks i ns i de tw o orm or e dark col or ed duff l e bags s t or ed i ns i de the l ocker . T he s o u r c e s t a t e d th a ts o m e k i l o g r a m s w e r e w r a p p e d i n t a n c o l o rt a p e a n d o th e r s i n f o i l . We n o te th a t th e s e a re d e ta ils th a t c a n o n ly b e v e ri f ie d a f te r e x e c u tio n o f

a s e a rc h w a rr a n t. T h e in f o rm a n t a ls o p ro v id e d in f o rm a tio n re g a rd in g th e p u rp o rt e d o w n e rs o f th e c o c a in e . T h e so u rc e in f

o rm e d O f

f ice r M a rtin e z th a t tw o H isp a n ic m a les , ide n tifie d a s D a v id R i ver a and J ohnnyV er s ace , w er e comi ng fr om Fl or i da the nextdayt o m ove the coc ai ne3

o u t o f th e sto ra g e lo c k e r to a n u n k n o w n lo c a tio n . O f f ice r M a rtin e z sh a re d h is n o tes w ith the o ffi cer w ho even tuall ydraft ed the sear ch w arr ant for the locker, O ffi cer B ri an M y ers . In re sp o n se to th is in f

o rm a tio n , O f

f ice r M y e rs a n d o th e rs w e n t to th e P u b lic St or age f aci l i tyl at erthatday . T her e, theyver i fi ed the exi s t ence of a l ockerJ 0819, and upon t al ki ng t o t he empl oy ee on duty , l earned thati thad bee n r ent ed byan i ndi vi dual us i ng the name D ani el R i ver a. T hi s D ani el R i ver a us ed an a ddr es s i n For tL auder dal e, Fl or i da. T he off

i cer s al s o br oughtw i th them a phot ogr aph of a D avi d R i ver a fi t t i ng t he des cr i pt i on of the D avi d R i ver a i dent i fi ed bythe i nform ant . T he empl oy ee, w ho appar ent l yw as new and the onl yone on duty , di d notr ecogni ze the i ndi vi dual i n the phot ogr aph. A tthe r eques tof the off i cer s on s i t e, O ffi cerD i s pas qual e and he rtr ai ned drug det ect i on dog, T r e, came t o t he s t or age f aci l i tyand w as expos ed t o l ockerJ 0819. O ffi cer D i s pas qual e then not i fi ed O ffi cerM y er s thatT r e “ha d a pos i t i ve i ndi cat i on on s t or age l ockerJ 0819 fornar cot i cs . ” J . A . 96–97. O ffi cerM y er s r eturned t o headqua r t er s and p re p a re d a se a rc h a n d se izu re w a rra n t f o r th a t lo c k e r. T h e a f

f id a v it, in its e n tirety , is r e p r o d u c e d b e l o w:

O n 7- 4- 06 y ouraff

i antP/ O M y er s #6657 r ece i ved i nform at i on fr om P/ O M art i nez #1718. P/ O M art i nez s t at ed thata s our ce of i nform at i on cont act ed the off

i cerand s t at ed thatthe Publ i c St or age a t2700 G r antA ve. s t or age l ocker#J 0819 w i thi n the l as t24 hour s i s bei ng us ed t o s t or e ki l os of c o c a in e . T h e so u rc e sta ted th a t th e k ilo s a re in sid e a d a rk c o lo re d d u f f le b a g . S o m e k ilo s a re w ra p p e d a tan c o lo r ta p e a n d so m e k ilo s a re w ra p p e d in foi l . T he s our ce s t at ed thatther e ar e 2 orm or e duff l e bags i ns i de the s t or age lo c k e r. T h e so u rc e sta ted th a t a H /M n a m e d D a n iel R iv e ra a lo n g w ith4

anotherH / M named JohnnyV er s ace w er e comi ng fr om Fl or i da on 7- 5- 06 t o m ove the ki l os t o an unknow n l ocat i on. P/ O M y er s and C pl . J udge #8027 then w entt o t he empl oy ee a tthe Publ i c St or age a t2700 G r antA ve. T he e m p lo y e e c o n f

irm e d th a t D a n iel R iv e ra w ith a n a d d re ss o f 9 2 5 S W 3 0 th S t. F t. L a u d e rd a le, F lo rid a w a s re n tin g th e sto ra g e lo c k e r. A t th is tim e C p l. J udge then had K 9 come t o the Publ i c St or age a t2700 G r antA ve. s t or age l ocker#J 0819. P/ O D i s pas qual e #6742 and TR E #K 549 arr i ved on l ocat i on. T R E i ndi cat ed P OS I TI VE o n th e d o o r o f th e sto ra g e lo c k e r # J0 8 1 9 . P /O W h it e # 4 2 9 6 h as a su rve il lanc e o f th e sto rag e loc k er. J . A . 48 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . T her e w as no m ent i on of the name “D avi d R i ver a, ” and no m ent i on of the att empt ata phot o i dent i fi cat i on. T hi s aff i davi tw as pr es ent ed t o a P h i l a d e l p h i a Co u n tyb a i l c o mmi s s i o n e r , a n d th e s e a r c h wa rr a n twa s g r a n t e d . Th a ts a me e v e n in g , s till J u ly 4 , o f

f ic e rs re tu rn e d to th e lo c k e r a n d c a rr ie d o u t th e s e a rc h w a rr a n t. T heyfou nd 47 . 83 kil og ram s of co cai ne insi de the l ock er, pack aged i n d uff l e bag s. G onzal ez w as l at erchar ged i n a fe der al i ndi ctm entw i th one countof pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e under21 U . S. C . § 841( a) ( 1) . H e moved t o s uppr es s the evi dence and al s o s oughta hea r i ng pur s uantt o Fr anks . T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d a hea r i ng on G onzal ez’ s m ot i on. Atth e h e a r i n g , Of

f i c e rM y e r s t e s t i f

i e d th a th e h a d “ mi s t a k e n l y ” s wi t c h e d th e t wo sim ilar n a m e s o f

“ D a v id ” a n d “ D a n iel” w h e n d ra f tin g th e a f

f id a v it b e c a u se th e P u b lic St or age e m pl oy ee us ed the name “D ani el , ” as perthe ac countr ecor d ther e. A s t o the f a iled id e n tific a tio n b yth e P u b lic S to ra g e e m p lo y e e , M y e rs te stif ied th a t h e f

a iled to i ncl ude thi s i nform at i on i n t he af fi davi tbeca us e the empl oy ee w as new . H e s t at ed thathe di d as k t o s peak t o anotherempl oy ee butther e w as no one el s e on dutybeca us e of the5

hol i day . M y er s t es t i fi ed thathe had us ed dog s ni ffs over50 t i m es , buthe di d nothave or att empt t o acqui r e anyi nform at i on aboutthe tr ai ni ng of Tre , the ca ni ne, orO ffi cer D ispa sq u ale, th e c an ine h an d ler. A f ter th e h e a rin g , the D istric t C o u rt d e n ied G o n z a lez ’s m o tio n . It sp e c if ica lly r ej ect ed the Fr anks c h a llen g e a n d a lso d e c lin e d to a d o p t a r u le r e q u irin g th e p o lice to s ubs t ant i at e the dog’ s r el i abi l i ty , tr ai ni ng, and expe r i ence i n the af fi davi t . G onzal ez l at er pl ed gui l tyt o t he i ndi ctm ent , r es ervi ng the r i ghtt o appea l the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of th e m o tio n to su p p re ss p h y sic a l ev id e n c e . A f ter se n ten c in g , h e f

iled a tim e lya p p e a l. I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T h e D istric t C o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 2 3 1 . W e h a v e a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. I n eval uat i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the mot i on t o s uppr es s , w e r evi ew for cl earerr oras t o t he under l y i ng fac t s , butexer ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe appl i cat i on of la w to p ro p e rl yf

o u n d f a c ts . U ni t ed Stat es v. R i ddi ck , 156 F. 3d 505, 509 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. I

nigo , 925 F. 2d 641, 656 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ) . H ow ever , thi s does not m e a n th a t w e a re to se c o n d -g u e ss a m a g istra te’ s d e ter m in a tio n o f su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to s uppor ta fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. I n part i cul ar , the Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed that aff i davi t s ar e norm al l ydr aft ed bynonl aw y er s i n the mi ds tand has t e of a cr i m i nal in v e stig a tio n , an d th u s a f ter -th e -f a c t sc ru tin yb yc o u rts o f th e su f f icie n c yo f

a n a f f id a v it s houl d nott ake the form of de novo re v ie w . I l l i nois v. G at es , 462 U . S. 213, 235–366

( 1983) . A m agi s tr at e’ s det erm i nat i on of pr obabl e ca us e s houl d be pai d gr eatdefe r ence by re v ie w in g c o u rt s . I

d. ( ci t i ng Spi nel l iv. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 9 3 U . S . 4 1 0 , 4 1 9 (19 6 9 )). W e ca n aff

i r m the deni al of the s uppr es s i on m ot i on on anygr ound s uppor t ed by th e re c o rd . U

ni t ed Stat es v. A gnew , 407 F. 3d 193, 196 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . W e appl ythe s a m e d e f e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d o f

r e v i e w a s th e D i s tr i c tC o u r tt o th e i s s u i n g j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r 's deci s i on t o author i ze the s ear ch and c ons i derw hetherthe j udi ci al offi cerhad a

“ s u b s ta n tia l b a s is ” f

o r c o n c lu d in g th a t p ro b a b le c a u s e e x is te d . U ni t ed Stat es v. C onl ey , 4 F. 3d 1200, 1205 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( quot i ng G at es , 4 6 2 U . S . at 23 8 ). II I. A n a ly sis G o n z a lez ra ise s tw o in ter re late d c laim s. F irst, h e c laim s th a t th e lac k o f sp e c if ic r el i abi l i tys t at ement s i n t he af fi davi tconce rni ng the dog s ni ff r ender s the s ni ff

“ m e a n in g les s” in th e p ro b a b le c a u se a n a ly sis . S e c o n d , h e c laim s th a t th e a f f id a v it su b m itt e d in su p p o rt o f

th e a p p lica tio n f

o r a w a rra n t w a s re c k les slyp ro d u c e d w ith err oneous as s ert i ons and omi s s i ons i n vi ol at i on of Fr anks . Be c a u s e b o th c l a i ms ul t i m at el ygo t o t he fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e, w e w i l l handl e the cl ai m s i n the fol l ow i ng s equenc e: ( 1) the ext entt o w hi ch a dog’ s tr ai ni ng m us tbe i n the af fi davi ts uppor t i ng an appl i cat i on fora w arr ant ; ( 2) the fi r s ts t ep of the Fr anks in q u iryto d e ter m in e w h a t sh o u ld hav e go ne int o the affi dav i t ; and (3) w hetherthe af fi dav i t , as m od i fi ed, provides a s ubs t ant i al bas i s fora fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. W e conc l ude thatthe D i s tr i ctC our thad a s ubs t ant i al bas i s fora fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e notw i ths t andi ng G onzal ez’ s cl ai m s , and7

thu s the re is no n ee d to co n side r th e g o o d fa ith ex ce p ti o n u n d er U ni t ed Stat es v. Leon , 4 6 8 U .S . 8 9 7 (1 9 8 4 ). T h u s, w e a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r d e n y in g th e m o tio n to supp res s. A . D o g sn if

f G onzal ez ur ges us t o hol d t hat , abs ents peci fi c fa ct s i n the w arr antes t abl i s hi ng a do g’s r el i abil i ty , w e cann ot consi der a po si t i ve d og sni ff as partof the “subst anti al basi s” f o r p ro b a b le c a u se . W e h a v e n e v e r c re a ted su c h a ru le, a n d d e c lin e to a d o p t o n e a t th is t i m e. I n addi t i on, w e nee d notdeci de w hethers uch a rul e w oul d be appr opr i at e w her e the so le fa ct l ea d ing to p rob ab le ca u se is the d o g sn iff. In this ca se, th ere w as a ti p that there w ere drug s i n the l ock er w here the can i ne alert ed, and otherfact s i n the probab l e cause as s es s m entw er e corr obor at ed. T he af fi davi ti n s uppor tof the s ear ch w arr ants t at ed thatO ffi cerD i s pas qual e, i dent i fi ed bybadge number , br oughta mem berof the pol i ce’ s K 9 uni t , T r e, i dent i fi ed by K - num ber , t o t he fa ci l i ty . T r e i ndi cat ed pos i t i ve w hen expos ed t o the doorof s t or age lock er J0 8 1 9 . T h is co rrob o rated the in it ial ti p that there w ere d rug s in the lock er. T he purpos e of the w arr antr equi r ementi s nott o depr i ve compl et el ythe G overnm entof r eas onabl e i nfer ence s , butonl ythattheynotbe made byoffi cer s caught u p in th e h e a t o f

th e in v e stig a tio n . T h e b a il co m m iss io n e r is e n tit led to m a k e a ll r eas onabl e i nfer ence s w hen r evi ew i ng an af fi davi tfora “s ubs t ant i al bas i s ” t o fi nd p ro b a b le c a u s e . See J

ohns on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 333 U . S. 10, 13–14 ( 1948) ( “The poi ntofT h is is n o t to sa yth a t a d e f e n d a n t w o u ld b e w ith o u t re m e d yif th e d o g w a s, in f

a c t, 2 unr el i abl e orhad no tr ack r ecor d of r el i abi l i ty . I n s uch a c as e, an af fi davi tthatdi d not d isc lo se k n o w n f

a c ts, th u s c a lli n g th e d o g ’s r e liab ili tyin to q u e stio n , w o u ld b e su b jec t to an aly sis un d er Fr anks fora mat er i al om i s s i on. T hi s coul d r es ul ti n s uppr es s i on of the evi dence s ei zed be caus e the bai l comm i s s i onerw oul d have w ant ed t o know that i nform at i on befor e dec i di ng w hi ch i nfer ence s w er e r eas onabl e t o m ake. 8 th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t, w h ich o f ten is n o t g ra sp e d b yz e a lo u s o f f ice rs, is n o t th a t it deni es l aw enfor cementthe s uppor tof the us ual i nfer ence s w hi ch r eas onabl e men dr aw f r o m e v i d e n c e . I t s p r o t e c t i o n c o n s i s t s i n r e q u i r i n g th a tth o s e i n f e r e n c e s b e d r a w n b y a neutr al and det ache d m agi s tr at e i ns t ead of bei ng j udged bythe off i cerengage d i n the o f ten c o m p e tit iv e e n terp rise o f f e rre tin g o u t cr im e .”). It th u s w a s re a so n a b le f o r th e b a il comm i s s i onert o i nferthatT r e, as a mem berof the K 9 uni t , had the tr ai ni ng and r el i abi l i tyr equi r ed t o det ectnar cot i cs . T hus , w hen the dog s ni ff i s notthe onl yel ement 2 of pr obabl e ca us e, i ti s s uffi ci entt o i dent i fythe pol i ce c ani ne byname and i dent i fi cat i on n u m b er, al o n g w ith it s h an d ler byb ad g e n u m b er. W e di s t i ngui s h t he ca s e of U ni t ed Stat es v. Mas s ac , 8 6 7 F . 2 d 1 7 4 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 9 ), beca us e i tdi d notaddr es s the i s s ue of pr obabl e ca us e fora w arr ant . I n thatcas e, the q u e stio n w a s w h e th e r a n a ler t g iv e n b ya tra in e d a n d re liab le d o g , in c o n ju n c tio n w ith o th e r k n o w n c irc u m sta n c e s, p ro v id e d p ro b a b le c a u se to a rre st th e d e f e n d a n t w ith o u t a w a rr a n t. I

d. at176. Fur therm or e, i n M as s ac th e tra in in g a n d re liab ili tyre q u ire m e n ts w er e es t abl i s hed af

t erthe fa ct . T he dog w as des cr i bed as “‘ K - 9 T hor , ’ a s peci al l ytr ai ned drug- s ni ffi ng dog. ” I

d. at175. B eca us e i tw as aft erthe fa ct , the D i s tr i ctC our ti n M as s ac9

w as abl e t o as s es s the ca ni ne’ s s peci fi c beha vi ori n fi ndi ng the nar cot i cs and conc l ude that the p art i culardo g m etthe tr ai ning and rel i abil i tyrequi rem ents . In th e c o n tex t o f

d ru g -ta in ted m o n e y , w e h a v e re q u ire d so m e sh o w in g o f re liab ili ty a n d tr a in in g . U

ni t ed Stat es v. $10, 700. 00 i n U . S. C ur r ency , 2 5 8 F . 3 d 2 1 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), c o n c e rn e d th e p r o b a b l e c a u s e n e c e s s a ry t o s u s t a i n a f o r f e i tu r e o f s u s p e c t e d d ru g m o n e y, notaboutaff

i davi t s i n s uppor tof s ear ch w arr ant s . T he hea r i ng w as hel d after the s ei zur e, and w e conc l uded thatthe G overnm entneede d t o pr es ents om e evi dence conce rni ng t he p a rt ic u la r d o g ’s tr a in in g a n d a c c u ra c yin d e te c tin g n a rc o tic s o n c u rr e n c y . I d. a t2 3 0 . We n o ted th a t th e k e yiss u e w a s w h e th e r th e d o g sn if f w o u ld c a rryp ro b a tiv e v a lu e in det erm i ni ng w hetherther e w as pr obabl e ca us e t o t i e the curr encyt o a drug cr i m e, ju s tif y in g s e iz u re . I

d. W e di d nots peci fi cal l yconfr onta magi s tr at e’ s abi l i tyt o m ake r eas onabl e i nfer ence s aboutthe dog’ s tr ai ni ng. A s i m i l ars cena r i o ar os e i n U ni t ed Stat es v. C arr , 25 F. 3d 1194 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . T her e w e uphel d a convi ct i on bas ed upon the s e iz u re o f

c u rr e n c ya f

te r a “ tr a in e d ” d o g a le rt e d . Id . at1202 n. 3. A gai n, ther e w as no w a rr a n ti n v o l v e d r e q u i r i n g a m a g i s tr a t e ’ s r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s , a n d m o r e i m p o r t a n t l y, ther e w as no el abor at i on on the tr ai ni ng i n the r ecor d as i de fr om the conc l us orys t at ement th a t th e d o g w a s “ tr a in e d .” W h ile o th e r c irc u it co u rts h a v e re q u ire d m o re , at th is tim e w e d o n o t se e a n e e d to a d o p t s u c h a ru le . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez , 380 F. 3d 538, 544 n. 4 ( 1s tC i r . 2004) (find ing p rob ab le ca u se b ase d u p o n sh o w ing o f d o g ’s reli ab il ityat su p p ression h ea ri n g );10

U ni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez - P ena , 3 3 6 F .3 d 4 3 1 , 4 4 4 & n .6 2 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (s a m e ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Sundby , 186 F. 3d 873, 876 ( “To est abl i s h a dog’ s r el i abi l i ty , the af fi davi tneed o n lystat e the d o g h as b ee n tr aine d an d ce rt ifi ed to d etec t dru g s. ”); U ni t ed Stat es v. Li ngenf el t er , 997 F. 2d 632, 639 ( 9th C i r . 1993) ( “A cani ne s ni ff a l one ca n s uppl ythe pr obabl e ca us e nec es s aryfori s s ui ng a s ear ch w arr anti f the appl i cat i on forthe w arr ant es t abl i s hes the dog’ s r el i abi l i ty . ”) . W hi l e r equi r i ng a more det ai l ed s t at ementof tr ai ni ng and r el i abi l i tyi n t he af

fi davi tw oul d fac i l i t at e the dr aw i ng of i nfer ence s bya neutr al m agi s tr at e, the abs ence of s uch a s t at ementdoes notpr ecl ude i t . Fur therm or e, i ns ofaras the c o n ce rn is a lac k o f re li ab il ityo r training , the a ff iant is ob li g ated u n d er Fr anks to di s cl os e thos e conc erns . T hus , the i nform at i on conce rni ng the dog s ni ff i s pr oper l yi n the aff i davi t , and maybe cons i der ed bythe bai l comm i s s i onert o m ake a r eas onabl e i nfer ence conce rni ng the exi s t ence of pr obabl e ca us e. B . Fr anks i nqu i ry U n d er Franks v. D el aw are , a def endanti s ent i t l ed t o a hea r i ng i f he c an make a s ubs t ant i al pr el i m i narys how i ng thata fa l s e s t at ementknow i ngl yand i nt ent i onal l y , or w ith re c k les s d isre g a rd f o r th e tru th , w a s in c lu d e d b yth e a f f ian t in th e w a rra n t af

f id a v it, and thatthe al l egedl yfal s e s t at ementi s nece s s aryt o the fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e. 438 U . S. at155–56. T o pr evai l , the def endantm us tdemonstr at e thatw hati s fal s e w as ei t her i ntent i on al or w i th reckl ess di sr egard b ya prepo nd erance of the evidence, and he m ust a lso d e m o n stra te th a t, w ith th e f a lse m a ter ial c o rre c ted , the a f f id a v it’s c o n ten t is11

in s u f f ic ie n t to e s ta b lis h p ro b a b le c a u s e . I d. ; U ni t ed Stat es v. Y

us uf , 461 F. 3d 374, 383 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). I n s u c h a c a s e , th e s e a rc h w a rr a n t is v o id e d a n d th e f ru its s u p p re s s e d . Fr anks , 438 U . S. at155–56. G onzal ez a r gues thattw o por t i ons of the af fi davi tar e s ubj ectt o m odi fi cat i on u n d er Fr anks : ( 1) the mi s t aken us e of “ D ani el ” i ns t ead of “D avi d” conc erni ng the t i p; and ( 2) the omi s s i on of the att empt t o getphot o i dent i fi cat i on fr om the Publ i c St or age empl oy ee. W e di s t i ngui s h betw een a s s ert i ons and omi s s i ons forpurpos es of the Fr anks in q u ir y . Y

us uf , 4 6 1 F .3 d a t 3 8 3 . Foran as s ert i on, even mi nordet ai l s can be s t at ed w i th r eckl es s di s r egar d forthe truth. R eckl es s nes s i s m eas ur ed notbythe r el evanc e of the i nform at i on, butbythe d e m o n s tr a tio n o f

w illin g n e s s to d is to rt tru th a f f ir m a tiv e ly. W

i l son v. Ru sso , 212 F. 3d 781, 788 ( 3d C i r . 2000) . A n as s ert i on i s m ade w i th r eckl es s di s r egar d forthe truth w hen the af fi antm us thave e nt ert ai ned s er i ous doubt s as t o the truth of hi s s t at ementorhad o b v io u s re a s o n s to d o u b t th e a c c u ra c yo f th e in f o rm a tio n h e re p o rt e d . I d. Foran o m iss io n , w e a re c o n c e rn e d a b o u t g iv in g n e u tra l an d d e tac h e d m a g istra tes th e a b ili tyto dr aw r eas onabl e i nfer ence s i n or dert o avoi d gi vi ng pol i ce the pow ert o m ake uni l at er al d e c is io n s o n th e m a te ri a lity o f in f o rm a tio n . I

d. at787. A n om i s s i on i s m ade i f an a ffi ant wi th h o l d s a f

a c twi th i n h i s k n o wl e d g e th a t“ a n yr e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n wo u l d h a v e k n o wn thatthi s w as the ki nd of thi ng the magi s tr at e w oul d w i s h t o know . ” I d. at788 ( ci t at i on o m itted).W e n o te th a t th e sim ilarityb e tw e e n th e n a m e s “ D a v id ” a n d “ D a n iel” w a s s u f f icie n tly 3 confus i ng s o as t o r es ul ti n an err ori n the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s ow n or derr egar di ng the Fr anks i s s ue. T he D i s tr i ctC our tm i s t akenl ytr ans pos ed “D avi d” and “ D ani el ” i n the fol l ow i ng s ent ence : “D efe ndant ’ s br i ef makes m ent i on of the fa ctthatthe af fi davi tforthe s ear ch w arr antr efe r s t o a D ani el R i ver a, w her eas the name of the i ndi vi dual r ent i ng the l ocker w as D avi d R i ver a, butthe name of the def endanti s D ani el R i ver a. ” The nam e of the person rent i ng the locker w as D ani el R i ver a, butthe per s on w hom O ffi cerM y er s w as t i pp ed to w as D a v id

R i ver a. 12 1 . In co rr ec t ass er ti o n o f fac ts T h e t i p r e c e i v e d b yOf

f i c e rM a r t i n e z a n d r e l a y e d t o Of f i c e rM y e r s c o n c e rn e d t wo m ales: Joh n n yV ersa ce an d D av id R ivera . M y ers loc ated a p h o to o f a D av id R ivera m a tch in g th e d e sc rip tio n su p p lied b yth e tip ste r. H e a sk e d th e P u b lic S to ra g e e m p lo y e e if he r ecogni zed the man i n t he phot o. Y et , w hen the af fi davi tw as w r i t t en and s how n t o t he bai l comm i s s i oner , i tr efe r r ed t o a D ani el R i ver a, notD avi d R i ver a. D ani el R i ver a w as the name on l ockerJ 0819, buti tw as notthe name r el ay ed bythe t i p. A tthe Fr anks hear i ng, O ffi cerM y er s t es t i fi ed thatthe name O ffi cerM art i nez ga ve him w as D avid R i vera, and that the reference t o D aniel R i vera i n the affi dav i tw as a m ista k e . T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e “ e rro r in th e f irst n a m e b e tw e e n D a v id a n d D a n ie l is n o t f

a ta l” b e c a u s e th e “ re f

e re n c e to ‘D a n ie l’ in th e a f f id a v it w a s a m is ta k e ,” nota del i ber at e mi s s t at ementr ender i ng the w arr anti nval i d. I n s o doi ng, the D i s tr i ct C o u r tc r e d i t e d O f

f i c e rM ye r s ’ s t e s t i m o n y. 3 A ppl y i ng the s t andar d of ent ert ai ni ng s er i ous doubt s as t o the truth of the sta tem e n t o r h a v in g o b v io u s re a so n s to d o u b t th e a c c u ra c yo f th e in f o rm a tio n re p o rte d , it13

i s l i kel ythatO ffi cerM y er s di d nothave obvi ous r eas ons t o doubtthe ac cur acyand made an inn o ce n t m ist ak e o f tran sp o sing tw o sim il ar n am es. W e n ee d n o t dec ide th is m att er, ho w ever, becau se ( as di scussed below ) even i f i tm eet s the st and ard of “reckles s di s r egar d forthe truth, ” the r emedyi s m er el yt o corr ectthe af fi davi tand s ubs t i tut e the name “D avi d” for“D ani el ” i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance . W e bel i eve ther e w oul d s t i l l be a su b stan ti al ba sis fo r co n clud ing that p rob ab le ca u se e x ist ed to se arc h the lo ck er.

2 . O m issi o n o f fac ts W hi l e O ffi cerM y er s fai l ed i n hi s att empt t o s ecur e an i dent i fi cat i on fr om empl oy ees atPubl i c St or age, he di d noti ncl ude thi s i nform at i on i n hi s aff i davi t . A tt he h e a r i n g , h e t e s t i f

i e d th a tth e s o l e e mp l o y e e wh o l o o k e d a tth e p h o t o wa s n e w. He f u r th e r e d t e s t i f

i e d th a tth e r e w e r e n o o th e re m p l o ye e s a v a i l a b l e th a td a y. It is c lea r th a t a la c k o f

p o sitiv e p h o to id e n tific a tio n is a f a c t th a t an yre a so n a b le per s on w oul d know the bai l comm i s s i onerw ant ed. I dent i fi cat i ons and fa i l ed i dent i fi cat i ons can be hi ghl yr el evantt o a pr obabl e ca us e det erm i nat i on. I ti s al s o the c a s e , h o w e v e r, t h a t O f

f ic e r M y e rs n o te d th e f

a c t th a t th e e m p lo y e e w a s n e w . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Frost , 999 F. 2d 737, 743 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( cons i der i ng both the omi s s i on and the offi cer ’ s expl anat i on of w hyi tw as bel i eved t o be a ne utr al fac tforthe s econd s t ep of the Fr anks i nqui r y ) . B eca us e w e t ake i nt o acc ountw hetherthi s w as “a s cheme t o dece i ve the [ b a il co m m iss io n e r] a b o u t a m a ter ial f a c t” o r “ a d e sire to w ith h o ld a f a c t n o t m a ter ial to the [ b ail co m m issi o n er]’s t ask , ” w e c an p rop erlyco n side r th e e ff ec t of the e m p loy ee ’s14

t enur e on the mat er i al i tyof the omi s s i on as w el l beca us e i ti ndi cat es thatthe omi s s i on w a s o f a n e u tr a l f

a c t. S e e id . at743 n. 3 ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . C a listo , 838 F. 2d 711, 7 2 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 )).

3. R e m e dy W hen r evi ew i ng the evi dence fora “s ubs t ant i al bas i s , ” w e w i l l as s um e w i thout d e c id in g th a t w e m u st c o rre c t th e a ss e rtio n , rep lac in g th e f irst in sta n c e o f

“ D a n iel” w ith “D avi d. ” A ddi t i onal l y , w e w i l l corr ectthe omi s s i on and cons i derthe fa ctthatan empl oy ee di d notr ecogni ze the pi ctur e of a D avi d R i ver a, butw e al s o t ake not e of the f a c tth a tth e e m p l o ye e w a s n e w t o th e s t o r a g e f a c i l i ty. C . P rob ab l e cau se W e now r evi ew the af

fi davi ti n s uppor tof the s ear ch w arr antt o det erm i ne w hether there w as a “su b stan ti al ba sis” fo r th e b ail co m m issi o n er’s fin d ing o f p rob ab le ca u se. In I l l i nois v. G at es , the S u p re m e C o u rt re a f f irm e d th e to tality -o f

-th e -c irc u m sta n c e s a n a ly sis th a t tr a d itio n a lly h a s in f o rm e d p ro b a b le c a u s e d e te rm in a tio n s . G at es , 4 6 2 U .S . a t 2 3 8

– 2 9 . T he t as k of the i s s ui ng m agi s tr at e i s s i m pl yt o m ake a pr act i cal , comm on- s ens e dec i s i on w hether , gi ven al l the ci r cumst ance s s etfor th i n the af fi davi tbefor e hi m , i ncl udi ng the v e ra c itya n d b a sis o f

k n o w led g e o f

p e rso n s s u p p ly in g h e a rsa yin f o rm a tio n , the re is a f

a ir p ro b a b ility th a t c o n tr a b a n d o r e v id e n c e o f a c ri m e w ill b e f

o u n d in a p a rt ic u la r p la c e . I d. T he dutyof a r evi ew i ng courti s s i m pl yt o ens ur e thatthe magi s tr at e had a “s ubs t ant i al b a s is ” f o r c o n c lu d in g th a t p ro b a b le c a u s e e x is te d . Id . A d d it ion all y , the S u p rem e C o u rt15

has r ecogni zed ther e i s m uch val ue t o the corr obor at i on of det ai l s of an i nform ant ’ s t i p by in d e p e n d e n t p o lic e w o rk , a n d th is c o rr o b o ra tio n c a n a ls o p ro v id e a s u b s ta n tia l b a s is . I d. at242. G ates ci t ed appr ovi ngl yt o D r aperv. U ni t ed Stat es , 358 U . S. 307 ( 1959) , on the i s s ue of c orr obor at i on. T her e, an i nform antr eport ed thatD r aperw oul d arr i ve i n D enver on a tr ai n fr om C hi cago on one of tw o day s , and thathe w oul d be ca rry i ng a quant i tyof h ero in. T h e inf

o rm an t al so su p p li ed a f airl yd etail ed p h y sical de scripti o n o f D rap er, i ncludi ng a predi ct i on that he w ou l d b e w eari ng a l i gh tcolor ed rai nco at , brow n sl acks, and bl ack s hoes , and w oul d be w al ki ng “r eal fas t . ” Pol i ce c orr obor at ed thi s i nform at i on w hen theyobs erved a man m at chi ng thi s des cr i pt i on getoff a tr ai n arr i vi ng fr om C hi cago, w a lk in g ra p id lyw h ile w e a rin g a tti re m a tch in g th e tip . E v e n th o u g h th e se w e re a ll fa c ts cons i s t entw i th i nnocentact i vi ty , the Supr eme C our tfound thi s t o be s uffi ci ent corr obor at i on t o j us t i fya fi ndi ng of pr obabl e ca us e bec aus e the s ol e mat er i al fac t re m a in in g to b e v e ri f

ie d w a s th e p re s e n c e o f h e ro in . See G at es , 462 U . S. at242–43 ( ci t i ng D r aper , 3 5 8 U . S . at 30 9 , 3 1 3

– 1 4 ). I n thi s cas e, w e fi nd a s i m i l ars etof corr obor at ed fa ct s w hen w e cons i derthe aff i davi t , i ncl udi ng the Fr anks c o rre c tio n s. A n in f o rm a n t n o tifie d p o lice o f a sto ra g e u n it a t P u b lic S to ra g e in P h ilad e lp h ia th a t co n tain e d a lar g e q u a n tityo f d ru g s in a sp e c if

ic l ocker , num berJ 0819. H e t ol d offi cer s thatther e w er e tw o m al es , one bythe name of D a v id R iv e ra , co m in g f ro m F lo rid a to re triev e th e c o n tra b a n d th e n e x t d a y . T h e yw e n t to16

Publ i c St or age w i th a phot o of a D avi d R i ver a. T her e, theys poke w i th an empl oy ee, w ho i nform ed them t hata D ani el R i ver a w as r ent i ng the uni t . T he addr es s of r ecor d w as one fr om the St at e of Fl or i da. W hen the empl oy ee w as s how n the phot o of D avi d R i ver a, he c o u ld n o t m a k e a n id e n tific a tio n . T h is e m p lo y e e , h o w e v e r, w a s n e w , an d w a s th e o n ly one on dutyatthe t i m e. O ffi cer s cal l ed a c ani ne uni t , and a tr ai ned dog, i dent i fi ed by num ber , and hi s handl erarr i ved atthe s cene . W hen the dog w as byl ockerJ 0819, he i nd i cat ed p osi t i ve fo r the p res ence o f drug s. T hes e ar e the r el evantfac t s thatw oul d have be en bef or e the bai l comm i s s i onerbut forthe al l eged Fr anks err or . L i ke D r aper , the re w e re sp e c if ic, c o rro b o ra b le f

a c ts pr ovi ded thatw er e cons i s t entw i th i nnocentact i vi ty . T he s peci fi c s t or age l ockerJ 0819 at the s peci fi c Publ i c St or age w as r egi s t er ed t o a name verys i m i l art o the name gi ven byt he in f o rm a n t. M o re o v e r, th e a d d re ss o f re c o rd f o r th e lo c k e r w a s in F lo rid a , the v e ryS tate w her e the i nform antcl ai m ed the tw o m en w oul d be comi ng fr om . G oi ng fur therthan D r aperand w el l bey ond i nnocentfac t s , ther e w as an i ndi cat i on thatther e w er e drugs p rese n t, n am ely , the p o sit ive d o g sn iff a t th e loc k er in q u esti o n . T h u s, u n d er G at es and D r aper , there w as cer t ai nlya “subst anti al basi s” for concluding t hat pr ob able cause exi s t ed, even t aki ng the Fr anks i s s ues i nt o cons i der at i on. * * * * B eca us e the af

fi davi ti n s uppor tof the w arr ant , t aki ng i nt o acc ountal l of the al l eged de fec t s , pr ovi ded a s ubs t ant i al bas i s forconcl udi ng thatpr obabl e ca us e exi s t ed,17

w e a f f irm th e d e c isio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.