Opinion ID: 2645892
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The denial of a Franks hearing.

Text: As part of its investigation into Aguiar’s activities, the government sought a pen register and trap and trace warrant. In his April 3, 2009 application for a hybrid pen register/trap and trace order, DEA Agent Couture affirmed that on January 1, 2009, a confidential informant placed a recorded phone call to Aguiar at 21 (617) 549‐2915. However, in his supporting affidavit for the June 3, 2009 hybrid order, Couture stated that the January 1 phone call was placed to Aguiar at (617) 763‐8409. There is no dispute that the 8409 number in the June 3 application is the one actually called by the confidential informant. Appellants moved to suppress the evidence gathered pursuant to the trap and trace warrant, arguing that (1) the application contained a false statement of fact, and that false statement was the only evidence supporting the warrant, or (2) at a minimum, pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155‐56 (1978), an evidentiary hearing was required to determine if Agent Couture intentionally, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth made false statements essential to a finding of probable cause. The district court denied both requests, and appellants challenge that denial on appeal. The district court properly denied both requests. We agree with the district court’s analysis that even if the false statement were stricken from the affidavits, the affidavits are replete with information regarding controlled purchases of cocaine, in‐person surveillance of Aguiar’s travels and the use of multiple “burn” cell phones to conduct business among the target subjects—all of which would satisfy the necessary grounds to issue a hybrid order. 22