Carr
United States v. Carr
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Darryl Anthony Carr appeals his convictions of mailing an explosive device resulting in death, and related offenses. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here.
1. The district court properly denied Carr’s motions to hold a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). Disregarding its alleged defects, the affidavit prepared by Inspector Taranto demonstrated probable cause for issuance of a warrant to search Carr’s apartment. Probable cause for a warrant “requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 245 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). The affidavit challenged here plainly satisfied that standard: It noted, inter alia, that Carr was apprehended carrying pipe consistent with the pipe used in the mail bomb; that Carr admitted to having unrequited “feelings” for Galindo, and to being upset that she dated other men; that Carr had studied electrical engineering and kept electrical components in his apartment; and that *751 Carr had recently mailed a parcel from the post office from which the bomb was sent.