1 CA-CR 07-0177-91122

Recommendations

Info

will not satisfy the first prong of this test. Id. (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171). Furthermore, to invalidate the warrant, any “false statement” must not only be made knowingly, intentionally or recklessly, it must also be a statement that was necessary to the finding of probable cause. State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 245, 42, 25 P.3d 717, 733 (2001). 17 After listening to Detective Valadez’s testimony at the Franks hearing, the trial court could have found that Valadez did not make any knowing, intentional or reckless misstatements or omissions of material fact in the affidavit. There was nothing false or misleading in the affidavit with respect to the first three items Defendant challenges. First, as Detective Valadez explained, the evidence connecting the occupants of the Montebello warehouse with the 51st Avenue warehouse included repair orders showing that a forklift present at the Montebello warehouse had previously been repaired while at the 51st Avenue warehouse. 18 Second, there was nothing in the affidavit that would mislead the magistrate to believe that the information came only from law enforcement personnel. The affidavit expressly refers to certain information being obtained from workers in the area of the McDowell warehouse. Moreover, the fact that the information was derived from civilians would not have any impact 8
on the determination of probable cause. A citizen informant is presumed to be reliable. State v. Harris, 131 Ariz. 488, 490, 642 P.2d 485, 487 (App. 1982). Although Detective Valadez did not identify his sources with particularity in the affidavit, they were not anonymous. The affidavit and Detective Valadez’s testimony clearly indicated that he had personal contact with the workers to obtain the information included in the affidavit. “An unnamed individual . . . capable of being identified . . . is not anonymous.” United States v. Brown, 496 F.3d 1070, 1075 (10th Cir. 2007). 19 Third, we also reject Defendant’s contention that Detective Valadez misled the magistrate by failing to include that Lafarga had not been prosecuted for his alleged involvement with a 2002 marijuana shipping operation detailed in the affidavit. Nothing in the affidavit indicates that Lafarga was prosecuted. In fact, the language stating that the police “believe[d]” Lafarga was one of the suppliers suggests there was no prosecution with respect to his role in that prior incident. As a result, the lack of a statement that he was not prosecuted does not constitute a material omission. See United States v. DiCesare, 765 F.2d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that a reference to an earlier arrest while failing to relate that the government subsequently declined to prosecute was insufficient 9
Page 1 and 2: NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREA
Page 3 and 4: Gonzales inside while Tovar took fo
Page 5 and 6: information. He asserts that when t
Page 7: March 18, 2005, and April 15, 2005,
Page 11 and 12: Thus, notwithstanding the admitted
Page 13 and 14: direct use of information obtained
Page 15 and 16: Ariz. 296, 77 P.3d 1246 (2003); Sta
Page 17 and 18: See United States v. Silva, 380 F.3
Page 19 and 20: Id. at 118; see also Silva, 380 F.3
Page 21 and 22: direct evidence of Defendant’s pa

1 CA-CR 07-0177-91122

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?