United States v. Richardson
1:19-cr-02321
D.N.M.May 1, 2020Background
- April 10–11, 2018: A state judge issued and law enforcement executed a search warrant for 221 Moon St. NE (Defendant Decarrio Richardson’s residence) based on an affidavit by Det. J. Koppman.
- Affidavit relied primarily on a confidential source (CS) who: identified Richardson from a photo; stated the CS had purchased cocaine/crack from Richardson at that address on numerous occasions; and said Richardson continued selling within 24 hours of the affidavit.
- The CS participated in a controlled buy at a predetermined location from Richardson (in a black Audi); the purchased substance field-tested presumptively positive for cocaine; the CS was searched before/after and no contraband or weapons were found.
- Officers recovered firearms and ammunition from the residence during the search. A separate search of Richardson’s Audi is the subject of another suppression motion.
- July 2019: federal indictment charging Richardson with possession with intent to distribute 500+ grams of cocaine, being a felon in possession of a firearm/ammunition, and 924(c) firearm offenses.
- Richardson moved to suppress the evidence and alternatively sought a Franks hearing, arguing lack of probable cause (no nexus, stale information, insufficient CS reliability) and material omissions/false statements in the affidavit; the court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nexus between residence and criminal activity | Affidavit shows CS bought drugs at residence and identified address; controlled buy corroborated activity | Affidavit fails to state when CS last visited residence or where drugs were kept; no sufficient connection to place at time of search | Affidavit established a sufficient nexus—CS’s firsthand purchases, address identification, and recent confirmation supported probable cause |
| Staleness of information | Ongoing, continuous drug trafficking alleged; CS confirmed activity within 24 hours | CS’s general statement of "numerous occasions" is too vague to show timeliness | Not stale—continuous nature of alleged trafficking and 24‑hour corroboration made timeliness adequate |
| CS veracity, reliability, basis of knowledge | CS had firsthand knowledge (past purchases), sought leniency, and a controlled buy corroborated tip | CS credibility undermined by boilerplate language reused in other affidavits; affidavit didn’t fully detail basis of knowledge | Sufficient—firsthand observations, corroboration by controlled buy, and incentives to cooperate supported reliability under totality of circumstances |
| Franks hearing (alleged false statements/omissions) | Affidavit contained boilerplate or false statements about the CS; omissions/falsehoods were material | Affiant’s statements were true and consistent; defendant offered only speculation that statements were false | Denied—defendant failed to make the required substantial, particularized showing of intentional/reckless falsehoods or omissions to warrant a Franks hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rowland, 145 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 1998) (probable cause standard for search warrants)
- United States v. Danhauer, 229 F.3d 1002 (10th Cir. 2000) (affidavit must provide basis for reasonable inference that evidence will be found)
- United States v. Corral-Corral, 899 F.2d 927 (10th Cir. 1990) (nexus requirement between suspected criminal activity and place to be searched)
- United States v. Knox, 883 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir.) (discussing nexus and probable cause)
- United States v. Villanueva, 821 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2016) (nexus and probable cause principles)
- United States v. Mathis, 357 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2004) (staleness inquiry depends on nature/continuity of activity and items sought)
- United States v. Roach, 582 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2009) (ongoing, continuous activity reduces concern over passage of time)
- United States v. Campbell, 603 F.3d 1218 (10th Cir. 2010) (evaluation of informant veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Quezada-Enriquez, 567 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir. 2009) (firsthand observations by informants carry greater weight)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for evidentiary hearing when affidavit contains deliberately false or recklessly made statements)
- United States v. Sanchez, 725 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2013) (honest mistakes by affiant do not warrant suppression)
- United States v. Long, 774 F.3d 653 (10th Cir. 2014) (speculation is insufficient to obtain a Franks hearing)