Opinion ID: 6800378
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Motion to Traverse

Text: Nault also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to traverse the search warrant. That motion argued in relevant part that the search warrant affidavit failed to disclose information about the dog sniff and requested a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). “To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing that: (1) ‘the affiant officer intentionally or recklessly made false or misleading statements or omissions in support of the warrant,’ and (2) ‘the false or misleading statement or omission was material, i.e., necessary to finding probable cause.’” United States v. Norris, 942 F.3d 902, 909–10 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Perkins, 850 F.3d 1109, 1116 (9th Cir. 2017)). We conclude that Nault failed to show his entitlement to a Franks hearing. Nault provided an expert report from a different criminal case addressing a sniff by the same canine, Nato. The expert determined that the search in that case was 4 We need not address Nault’s argument that the marijuana pipe and brass knuckles were seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. While included in the search warrant affidavit, that evidence was not necessary for a finding of probable cause. See United States v. Heckenkamp, 482 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007) (“In order to determine whether evidence obtained through a tainted warrant is admissible, ‘[a] reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.’” (citation omitted)). UNITED STATES V. NAULT 17 unreliable because Nato was distracted and only alerted the fourth time he was directed to a particular area. At most, this expert report establishes that Nato’s alert was unreliable on a single unrelated occasion. The search warrant affidavit only said that Nato had “proven reliable in prior incidents.” Even if Nato’s sniff had been unreliable on one prior occasion, that does not mean Nato had not been reliable in most or a large number of prior incidents, which is all the affidavit implies. Nor does it establish that the affidavit described Nato’s sniff of Ross’s truck in a false or misleading way. Moreover, the expert report is dated seven months after the search warrant affidavit, so it could not demonstrate the government was aware of any issues with Nato when the search warrant application was submitted. Nault thus failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that any statement or omission in the affidavit was intentionally or recklessly false or misleading. See Norris, 942 F.3d at 910. Accordingly, the district court properly denied the motion to traverse. AFFIRMED.