U.S. v. Woodfork

In prosecution on drug distribution and firearm possession charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress drugs and firearm seized from defendant's home pursuant to search warrant, even though defendant sought Franks hearing on allegations that officer seeking said warrant misidentified defendant's home as place to be searched and omitted details about criminal histories of confidential informants. Record showed that officer provided live testimony in front of issuing judge to support application for warrant, and Dist. Ct. could properly find existence of probable cause in spite of lack of information regarding informant's criminal histories, where officer provided information about four controlled purchases of drugs from defendant that were orchestrated and watched by police. Moreover, issuing judge could have probed criminal histories of informants had he thought it was necessary. Also, defendant failed to make requisite showing that officer either perjured himself or acted recklessly because he had serious doubt about truth of his testimony. Too, although there was discrepancy as to address of defendant's home, issuing judge asked clarifying questions about intended location of drug transaction at issue in controlled purchase.