Opinion ID: 582007
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Probable Cause for Search

Text: 24 Spillan advances two arguments on the probable cause issue. He argues first, that the district court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine the validity of the affidavit supporting the search warrant for his residence and business. He argues second, that the affidavit failed to demonstrate he was involved in counterfeit activity because it showed merely that he associated with suspected counterfeiters. 25 This court reviews a district court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence according to two standards: findings of fact will be upheld unless clearly erroneous, and conclusions of law will be reviewed de novo. United States v. Duncan, 918 F.2d 647, 650 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2055 (1991). In reviewing an affidavit in support of an application for a search warrant, the standard of review 26 is whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding that the affidavit established probable cause to believe that the evidence would be found at the place cited.... Probable cause exists when there is a 'fair probability,' given the totality of the circumstances, that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. 27 United States v. Davidson, 936 F.2d 856, 859 (6th Cir.1991) (quoting United States v. Loggins, 777 F.2d 336, 338 (6th Cir.1985)). 28 In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the Supreme Court established the requirements a defendant must satisfy to receive an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress: 29 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. The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant. 30 Id. at 171. 31 In support of his first argument, Spillan argues that falsehoods in the affidavit necessitated a Franks hearing. He contends that the affidavit contained the following false statements: 32 --A car which Spillan was seen driving, an Audi, had been purchased by Shugarts with counterfeit checks. 33 --Spillan had used false Social Security numbers to open bank accounts in Franklin county. 34 --Spillan had recently purchased a new car. 35 Before the district court, however, Spillan did not contend that the affidavit contained these falsehoods. Instead, he argued that the affidavit and its attachments failed to establish probable cause because they only outline the defendant's criminal record and an allegation that certain unsavory people associated with him. However, no actual criminal activity involving checks or documents is tried to him by the attachments. 36 This bare allegation to the district court fails to satisfy the requirements established by Franks. Spillan did not produce any proof to support his present contentions regarding the affidavit. Nothing in the record justifies a Franks hearing. 37 Further, even if this court were to accept as true Spillan's unsupported assertions regarding the falsity of the statements, we would still have to inquire whether the remainder of the affidavit demonstrates sufficient probable cause. The Court in Franks noted that 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. Id. at 171-72. As discussed below, the undisputed portions of the affidavit sufficiently establish probable cause, thus obviating the need for a hearing. 38 Spillan argues second, that the affidavit does not support a finding of probable cause. This court will not reverse a magistrate's probable cause determination if there is a fair probability that evidence will be found. In this case, the affidavit demonstrated a fair probability, even after excluding those portions which Spillan now asserts are false. The affidavit noted that Spillan: 39 --had a criminal history of counterfeiting checks. 40 --was a close associate of Shugarts who had recently been arrested for passing a forged cashier's check. Spillan shared an office with Shugarts, listed the same employer as Shugarts, drove a car owned by Shugarts, and spent time at Shugarts' residence. 41 --associated with Rezabek, who had a criminal history for counterfeiting checks and was known to use false identification. 42 --used an office that was under surveillance by the Columbus police because they suspected that men using the office had been purchasing cars with forged cashier's checks. 43 We think the Franklin County court that issued the warrant had a substantial basis for finding that the affidavit established probable cause to believe that evidence would be found in Spillan's residence, office, and automobile.