Schulze

United States v. Schulze

Good Law
156 F. App'x 38
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 28, 2005No. 03-10493California415 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Michael F. Schulze (“Schulze”) appeals the denial of his motion to suppress and his motion to reconsider. The district court properly concluded that the government did not intentionally or recklessly omit material information about the confidential informant from its affidavit in support of a search warrant for Schulze’s residence. Moreover, even if the government had intentionally or recklessly omitted information about the informant’s background and motivations, there was sufficient independent corroborating evidence in the affidavit to support the magistrate judge’s finding of probable cause. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); United States v. Martinez-Garcia, 397 F.3d 1205, 1215 (9th Cir.2005). The confidential informant consistently supplied the government with reliable information, *40 which the government confirmed through independent investigation. Additionally, much of the information in the affidavit came from Schulze himself, via audio recordings of conversations between Schulze and the confidential informant.

The district court also properly concluded that audiotapes of conversations between…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.