Opinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Defendant charged in connection with drug scheme brought motion to suppress evidence obtained via search warrant. The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Robert S. Lasnik, J., denied motion, and defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) search warrant was supported by probable cause, and (2) defendant was not entitled to reconsideration based on alleged Franks violation.
Affirmed.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding.
Before NOONAN, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appellant Argueta contends that the district court erred in denying the
Page 974.
motion to suppress evidence gained pursuant to the search warrant on the basis that the evidence the government used to connect him to the drug scheme was based only upon a confidential informant's unverified and uncorroborated statements contained in the affidavit serving as the basis for the search warrant. We reject this contention. Argueta was linked to the enterprise on the basis of police surveillance, intercepted phone calls, and the statements of the informant. Additionally, Argueta had been in contact with local police about the drug scheme; he had also been convicted of possession of contraband at his place of business earlier. Taken together, there was no lack of evidence presented to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. Our conclusion is bolstered by our obligation to be deferential to a magistrate's issuance of a search warrant. United States v. Ramos, 923 F.2d 1346, 1351 n. 9 (9th Cir.1991), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Ruiz, 257 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir.2001).
Argueta also contends that the district court improperly denied his motion to reconsider the denial based on an allegation of a Franks v. Delaware violation. We disagree. Argueta failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that there was a Franks violation. There was ample evidence to support the probable cause determination even if the affidavit included reference to Argueta's prior (but limited) cooperation with local police. Moreover, had the agent mentioned Argueta's prior cooperation in the affidavit, the decision to find probable cause would have been strengthened because Argueta's prior cooperation focused on what he knew of the Nava-Banuelos Organization.
AFFIRMED.