United States v. Moreno, 4:22-cr-00027

BADGES HIDTA taskforce investigated Donny Moreno for months; surveillance, trash pulls, and vehicle tracking produced drug-related evidence before and after a CI became involved.
A confidential informant (CI) told officers Moreno’s address, phone number, vehicle, and that Moreno was en route to pick up drugs; a National Guard analyst corroborated the phone-number mismatch/ownership.
Detective Taylor Wade swore an affidavit to obtain a GPS-tracking warrant for Moreno’s phone; the magistrate issued the warrant and police used GPS to locate Moreno, leading to pursuit, arrest, and multiple searches recovering suspected drugs and paraphernalia.
Moreno moved for a Franks hearing and to suppress, alleging Wade intentionally or recklessly omitted adverse information about the CI (criminal history, drug use, and consideration for cooperation) that would have defeated probable cause.
The court found Moreno did not make a substantial preliminary showing of intentional or reckless omissions and, in any event, that including the omitted CI background would not have defeated probable cause given extensive independent corroboration.
The motion for a Franks hearing and to suppress was denied; the warrant and subsequent evidence were upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether Moreno made a substantial preliminary showing entitling him to a Franks hearing	Moreno: Wade intentionally/recklessly omitted CI’s criminal history, drug use, and consideration for cooperation from affidavit	Omissions show deception and would have undermined CI credibility before magistrate	Court: No substantial preliminary showing of intent or recklessness; omissions at most negligent; no Franks hearing warranted
2. Whether the alleged omissions were material to probable cause	Moreno: CI’s dishonesty and incentives would negate CI’s weight and thus probable cause	Government: Independent investigation and corroboration by police render CI’s defects immaterial	Court: Even if omissions existed, affidavit still provided probable cause based on independent corroboration; omissions not material
3. Whether independent corroboration sufficed to support the warrant despite CI flaws	Moreno: CI information was critical and would be unreliable if CI shown biased/unreliable	Government: Months of surveillance, trash pull results, vehicle tracking, and analyst verification bolstered the affidavit beyond the CI tip	Court: Corroborative facts gave magistrate a substantial basis to issue warrant; evidence admissible

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Franks hearing requires substantial preliminary showing of intentional/reckless falsehoods or omissions that are material to probable cause)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause for warrants judged by totality of circumstances)
United States v. Kleinman, 880 F.3d 1020 (Franks hearing addresses validity of underlying affidavit)
United States v. Norris, 942 F.3d 902 (standards for Franks substantial preliminary showing and materiality analysis)
United States v. Reeves, 210 F.3d 1041 (probable cause assessed under Gates totality and informant reliability principles)
United States v. Perkins, 850 F.3d 1109 (consequences of successful Franks challenge require suppression)
United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775 (offer-of-proof requirement for alleging deliberate or reckless omissions)
United States v. Whitworth, 856 F.2d 1268 (need to show affiant’s subjective intent to deceive for Franks relief)
United States v. Woodfork, 999 F.3d 511 (judges can and should consider informant motivations; courts presume caution with CI tips)
United States v. Martinez-Garcia, 397 F.3d 1205 (failure to disclose informant incentives can support a Franks showing if uncontroverted)
United States v. Meling, 47 F.3d 1546 (omitted CI credibility facts do not undermine probable cause when independent corroboration exists)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception and magistrate’s independent role in warrant review)