United States v. Maglio, 21 F.4th 179

Background

On March 17, 2016, police executed a state search warrant at 83 Main Street, Hull, seizing firearms, packaged marijuana, marijuana plants, and over $5,000 cash.
The warrant rested on a 14‑page affidavit by Sgt. Detective Craig Lepro, which relied on: (a) information from an in‑custody informant, Vinicio Albuquerque; (b) surveillance detecting a strong marijuana odor near the property; (c) unusually high electricity usage for the residence; and (d) records linking vehicles and residency to David Maglio and co‑owner Erika Zerkel.
Albuquerque, arrested with over 15 pounds of marijuana, told officers the marijuana came from Maglio’s indoor grow and reported seeing firearms in Maglio’s basement; he had an extensive criminal history but was identified to police and had previously provided actionable information.
The affidavit also noted Maglio’s extensive criminal record, a prior marijuana grow prosecution (Rutland), and a November 2015 accident at 83 Main Street that tied a West Roxbury address (where a THC lab was found) to persons linked with Maglio.
Maglio moved for a Franks hearing and suppression, alleging false statements and omissions in the affidavit (e.g., overstated electricity figures, mischaracterization of Albuquerque’s role in the 130 Grove Street matter, possible medical‑marijuana registration). The district court denied relief without an evidentiary Franks hearing, after reforming/disregarding some contested statements but finding ample probable cause.
On appeal the First Circuit reviewed probable cause de novo and factual findings for clear error, and affirmed: the reformed affidavit still established probable cause, Albuquerque’s tip was sufficiently reliable and corroborated, and neither a Franks hearing nor an evidentiary suppression hearing was required.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for warrant	Warrant supported by Lepro Affidavit: informant tip, surveillance odor, high electric usage, records, and Maglio's criminal history show fair probability of grow and firearms at premises	Affidavit contained false/misleading statements and omissions such that, when corrected, it failed to establish probable cause	Held: Reformed affidavit still supplied ample probable cause; probable cause review affirmed
Entitlement to a Franks hearing	Government: any inaccuracies were immaterial; defendant failed to show intentional or reckless falsity or material omissions	Maglio: affidavit contained reckless false statements and omissions (e.g., mischaracterizing Albuquerque's role, electricity figures) that were material to probable cause	Held: No Franks hearing required—Maglio did not make a substantial preliminary showing of materiality
Need for an evidentiary suppression hearing	Government: disputed factual points (surveillance vantage, source of Albuquerque’s marijuana) are not material and can be resolved from the record	Maglio: factual disputes (where officer stood for odor detection; whether marijuana came from Maglio) require live testimony to resolve and could entitle him to suppression	Held: District court did not abuse discretion; Maglio failed to show material factual disputes that would change the outcome
Reliability and corroboration of informant tip	Government: Albuquerque was identified, in custody, gave first‑hand, detailed observations, and key facts were independently corroborated	Maglio: Albuquerque was unreliable, incentivized, and Lepro lacked direct contact with him; corroboration insufficient	Held: Informant’s credibility and independent corroboration were sufficient to include his information in the probable cause calculus

Key Cases Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for requiring evidentiary hearing when affidavit contains deliberate or reckless falsehoods or material omissions)
United States v. Austin, 991 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2021) (probable cause review of warrant affidavits)
United States v. Dixon, 787 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2015) (informant corroboration and reliability factors)
United States v. Tanguay, 787 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2015) (indicia enhancing informant trustworthiness)
United States v. Gifford, 727 F.3d 92 (1st Cir. 2013) (consideration of corroboration and affiant expertise in tip evaluation)
United States v. Greenburg, 410 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2005) (value of specific, first‑hand informant detail and corroboration)
United States v. Barbosa, 896 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2018) (standards for Franks hearing review)
United States v. Veloz, 948 F.3d 418 (1st Cir. 2020) (Franks hearing burden and review)
United States v. Maldonado‑Peña, 4 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2021) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of suppression hearing requests)
United States v. Ponzo, 853 F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 2017) (when a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on suppression)