Seymour
United States v. Seymour
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Defendant, Michael Seymour, appeals 1 the district court's determination, after a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), that the search warrant executed on November 12, 2001, and which prompted Seymour’s conviction, was valid.
The general rule for challenging a search warrant based on errors, omissions, or misstatements in the affidavits used to secure the search warrant is described by Franks :
United States v. Senchenko, 133 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Two sequential steps are required to find a Franks violation here. First, we determine whether the district court erred when it determined that Officer Ivens did not intentionally or recklessly withhold the information. Senchenko, 133 F.3d at 1158 . If we conclude there is clear error, we must then conduct de novo review to determine if the omissions negate probable cause. United States v. Reeves, 210 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir .2000).
The crux of this appeal concerns the affidavit supporting the warrant. At the heart of the affidavit is the credibility of a confidential informant. At the defendant’s Franks…