United States v. Jared Cardoza
404 U.S. App. D.C. 328
| D.C. Cir. | 2013Background
- Police executed a search warrant for Cardoza's D.C. apartment and seized drugs, guns, cash, and drug paraphernalia.
- Cardoza was indicted on federal narcotics and firearm offenses; he moved to suppress evidence as based on false statements in the warrant affidavit.
- District Court granted suppression after finding four false statements were made with reckless disregard for the truth and excising them left no probable cause.
- The Government appealed seeking reversal on two theories: the four statements were not recklessly false, or, even if excised, the remaining affidavit established probable cause.
- The Court of Appeals held that, even excluding the contested statements, the remaining affidavit showed a fair probability of drug trafficking and a valid basis to search Cardoza's residence, reversing the suppression order.
- Concurrence emphasizes the closeness of probable cause and cautions the government against relying on thin affidavits to support searches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the redacted affidavit still supports probable cause | Cardoza contends Franks voids reliance on the warrant. | Cardoza argues remaining facts fail to show drug trafficking. | Yes; remaining facts show probable cause. |
| Whether there was probable cause Cardoza was involved in drug trafficking | Cardoza's conduct and records do not prove trafficking beyond doubt. | Prosecutors show distribution-level cocaine tied to Cardoza and corroborating factors. | Fair probability supported trafficking allegation. |
| Whether probable cause to trafficking yields probable cause to search the apartment | Trafficking alone does not justify a residence search. | Common sense and routine practice support searching residence for drugs, cash, and paraphernalia. | Probable cause to search the apartment established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requires showing false statements in affidavit for excusing reliance on warrant)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (exclusionary rule exceptions when affidavits are in good faith)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is a practical, common-sense standard)
- United States v. Spencer, 530 F.3d 1003 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (probable cause review is de novo when redacting contested statements)
- United States v. Davis, 617 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (informal common-sense approach to evaluating probability)
- United States v. Johnson, 437 F.3d 69 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (probable cause and residence searches in drug cases)
- United States v. Young, 609 F.3d 348 (4th Cir. 2010) (cash and multiple cell phones suggest drug distribution)
- United States v. Whitner, 219 F.3d 289 (3d Cir. 2000) (concealment of address supports search for drugs)
- United States v. Vanness, 85 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (defendant's criminal history may support drug-conspiracy inference)
- Harris v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1056 (2013) (informant-gap considerations in probable cause)