UNITED STATES V. TZANNOS
460 F.3d 128 (2006)
NATURE OF THE CASE: The United States (P) appeal from a district court's suppression
order.
FACTS: Trooper Russolillo submitted an application for a search warrant which included a
fourteen-page affidavit in support of the application. The affidavit mentioned a
confidential informant named CI-1. CI-1 agreed to provide information to the troopers only
if his identity was not revealed. The CI-1 and Russolillo placed a 'controlled call' to
Tzannos (D) where CI-1 told Russolillo that D was the person who answered the phone during
the controlled call, and that D proceeded to give a rundown of the day's betting lines for
baseball. The affidavit stated that CI-1 had provided information to Russolillo and other
troopers in the past, and the information 'has proven to be reliable and true.' It said the
troopers had known CI-1 for more than two years and that they knew his identity and address.
The affidavit also gave extensive details on CI-1's past cooperation, stating, for example,
that CI-1 had identified various bookmakers and their identities and telephone numbers, that
all of the information had been corroborated by subsequent investigation, and that past
information from CI-1 had led to the arrest, prosecution, and conviction of three men for
gaming violations. The affidavit stated that CI-1 had also provided general intelligence
information regarding other criminal matters, but that the affiant could not detail the
particulars of these cases, because doing so would compromise the anonymity of the
informant, making him 'susceptible to physical harm and/or retribution.' The magistrate
issued the warrant based on the informant information and the information from the officer's
investigation. When executed they found a fully equipped gaming office including gaming
records, $10,200 in cash, and tape recorders and tapes that had been used to record
conversations with customers. They also found and seized a loaded pistol, two loaded
revolvers, a sawed-off shotgun, various types of ammunition, three switchblade knives, a
pair of brass knuckles, and a blowgun with needles. D was indicted on charges of violating
18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1). D asked the district court to conduct a Franks hearing so that he
could challenge 'the accuracy and truthfulness of the affidavit.' D argued that the
affidavit was untruthful. D identified each and every caller to that number on those days
and each and each and every one of those callers had signed a statement denying under oath
that he or she was the informant. D argued that no informant existed and that Russolillo had
lied. P argued that D had failed to meet 'the substantial preliminary showing that is a
prerequisite to obtaining an evidentiary hearing under Franks. There was no guarantee that D
had produced all the tapes further, the statements do not reveal the true names of the
purported affiants and do not indicate that those affiants were sworn before anyone
authorized by law to administer oaths. Further, it would hardly be surprising that CI-1 had
denied that he was an informant. The district court granted D's motion for a Franks hearing.
Eventually the court suppressed the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant. P
appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment