United States v. James Allen, II

MEMORANDUM

Appellant James David Allen appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a warrant-supported search of his home. He argues that police officers intentionally or recklessly omitted from the warrant affidavit information that would have negated probable cause. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. The district court did not clearly err in finding that the investigating officers did not intentionally or recklessly omit the challenged facts from the warrant affidavit. The district court heard testimony from the investigating officers at two Franks hearings. The district court credited the officers’ testimony, and those credibility findings were not clearly erroneous. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 , 105 S.Ct. 1504 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (“[WJhen a trial judge’s finding is based on his decision to credit the testimony of one of two or more witnesses, each of whom has told a coherent and facially plausible story that is not contradicted by extrinsic evidence, that finding, if not internally inconsistent, can…