United States v. Rigaud
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13400
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- In 2006, a Malden no-knock warrant for 95 Medford Street relied on CI Trainor and other sources, yielding drugs and firearms evidence.
- Trainor later admitted pre-buy concealment and ongoing cocaine use, disclosed to Rigaud in 2010 during discovery.
- Rigaud moved to suppress the June 9, 2006 search and fruits of the August 24, 2006 undercover buy; district court denied.
- Rigaud pleaded guilty in 2010 under a plea agreement while preserving the right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion.
- Rigaud challenges the Molis and Mercer affidavits, claiming omissions and unreliability undermine probable cause and the no-knock justification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to a Franks hearing | Rigaud claims omissions show reckless disregard and undermine probable cause. | Omission not material; probable cause remains intact. | Franks hearing not required; omissions not fatal to probable cause. |
| Probable cause for the 95 Medford Street warrant | Omissions about searches of Trainor undermine reliability and probable cause. | Totality of circumstances supported probable cause even with omissions. | Probable cause supported; omissions not fatal to the warrant. |
| No-knock warrant justification | Trainor's account alone cannot justify no-knock given later unreliability. | Other corroborating evidence supports no-knock and knock-and-announce rationale remains valid under Hudson. | No-knock justification upheld; exclusion not required for knock-and-announce issues. |
| Mercer affidavit and fruits of the undercover buy | Misstated reliability and omissions could taint warrants and fruits. | Undercover buy and affiant's statements still provided probable cause; fruits not suppressible where no improper search occurred. | Mercer affidavit not shown to undermine validity; fruits not suppressed. |
| Leon good-faith exception applicability | If Franks/omissions taint probable cause, Leon cannot save the evidence. | Good faith applies where the magistrate had probable cause or reliance was reasonable. | Court did not reach Leon issue given other findings; not necessary to decide. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (require two-part showing for evidentiary hearing on affidavit truthfulness)
- United States v. Hicks, 575 F.3d 130 (1st Cir. 2009) (probable cause assessed via totality of the circumstances)
- United States v. Castillo, 287 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2002) (omissions versus misstatements in Franks analysis)
- United States v. Cartagena, 593 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2010) (clear error standard for Franks determinations)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (U.S. 2006) (exclusionary rule does not apply to knock-and-announce violations)
- United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 659 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2011) (pretrial information and undercover buys not themselves suppressive)