Opinion ID: 1487998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Request for a Franks Hearing.

Text: Verrecchia also contends that he was entitled to a hearing pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), concerning warrants that are obtained through the deliberate or reckless inclusion of false or misleading material statements in a warrant application and affidavit   . State v. DeMagistris, 714 A.2d 567, 574 (R.I.1998). [22] In his brief to this Court, Verrecchia asserts that he made the requisite preliminary showing of the affiant's deliberate and/or reckless falsehoods and omissions of material information and so was entitled to a Franks hearing. In its opinion in Franks, the Supreme Court established the following criteria that must be met before a person is entitled to a Franks hearing: There is, of course, a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant. To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. They should point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient.    Finally, if these requirements are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required. On the other hand, if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to his hearing. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72, 98 S.Ct. 2674. We review rulings denying Franks hearings with deference. DeMagistris, 714 A.2d at 576 ([W]e review a lower court's determination that the defendant failed to satisfy the Franks standard with deference.); see also Santana, 342 F.3d at 66 (A district court's determination that the requisite showing for a Franks hearing has not been made is overturned only if clearly erroneous.); United States v. Nelson-Rodriguez, 319 F.3d 12, 34 (1st Cir.2003); United States v. Ranney, 298 F.3d 74, 77 (1st Cir.2002). Moreover, the party seeking a Franks hearing bears the burden of proof. Chavez-Miranda, 306 F.3d at 979. Verrecchia asserts that the affidavit mischaracterized the confidential informant (Rossi) as having been previously reliable and that, contrary to the statement in the affidavit, Cpl. DelPrete was not currently investigating a stolen weapons operation at the time that he submitted the affidavit to support the search warrant. Verrecchia maintains that Rossi had never before provided any information to law enforcement and that there was no such ongoing stolen weapons investigation. Indeed, he contends that even the state police had doubts about Rossi's credibility. He argues that the firearms purchase was actually an elaborate sting operation that was planned and orchestrated by the state police as a means for Rossi to demonstrate his credibility and that, in attempting to do so, Rossi had directed Verrecchia to participate in the illegal sale. Even if we agreed that the firearms purchase was an elaborate sting operation to establish Rossi's credibility because he had never previously supplied information to the police, the inexorable reality is that, by the time that Cpl. DelPrete swore to the truth of his affidavit, Verrecchia had already been arrested as a result, in part, of information Rossi provided. Furthermore, although it is possible that a stolen-weapons investigation might not have been in progress for a long while before Verrecchia's arrest, in view of the fact that a criminal information clearinghouse indicated that Verrecchia had delivered stolen firearms to the undercover detective just before his arrest, it is clear that such an investigation was at least in its initial stages at the time that the affidavit was submitted. Assuming for a moment that Verrecchia's allegations concerning mischaracterizations in the affidavit are true, there nevertheless remains more than sufficient untainted, corroborating evidence to support a finding of probable cause. [23] Verrecchia further asserts that Cpl. DelPrete deliberately omitted from his affidavit previously known information concerning Rossi's unreliability and that such omissions, coupled with the affidavit's statement that Rossi had previously been reliable, deliberately misled the issuing magistrate with respect to Rossi's credibility. In particular, Verrecchia argues that the affidavit failed to mention that Rossi: (1) had been incarcerated for two months before negotiating an agreement with the authorities to provide (allegedly stale) information in return for a lighter sentence and other consideration; [24] (2) arranged the firearms purchase in an attempt to establish his credibility because he had never previously provided any information to the police; (3) had ordered Verrecchia to participate in the sale; (4) was a perjurer and heroin addict; and, (5) had an extensive violent criminal record. Although the affidavit did omit some details concerning Rossi's background that may have tended to call his credibility into question, [25] those omissions do not invalidate the affidavit's citation to the significant amount of independently corroborated police work which, by itself, justify the search warrant and survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny. [26] See generally United States v. Nocella, 849 F.2d 33, 41 (1st Cir.1988). [27] Consequently, we conclude that Verrecchia was not entitled to a Franks hearing and that the motion justice did not err in denying such a hearing. [28]