Opinion ID: 6324618
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: Our standard for review of search warrants is deferential. We consider whether the grant of the warrant had a substantial basis under the totality of the circumstances as disclosed in the warrant application. In this case, the detective supported his warrant application with a number of items. These included the fact that four different—although unidentified—individuals had reported the defendant as currently dealing in methamphetamine, the defendant’s recent drug and weapons convictions, and the defendant’s monitored phone calls from jail the previous day. In one call, the defendant discussed with his father the importance of not letting anything happen to his safe which had “everything.” In the other, the defendant discussed with his female companion going through “shit” to pay off his debt, and the fact that “all that shit” was in the house. The magistrate found this information sufficient to justify a search warrant for the house. We conclude that the magistrate’s determination had a substantial basis. In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize that the entire warrant application should be considered. Items should not be excised merely because, by themselves, they are not particularly significant and would not establish probable cause. In other words, excision pursuant to Franks v. Delaware should occur only in the situation described in Franks v. Delaware: when statements in the warrant application were intentionally or recklessly false. See 438 U.S. 158, 171–72 (1978). 4 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress, the defendant’s convictions and sentence, and the decision of the court of appeals.