Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellants, Lewis De Payne and Bonnie Vitello, challenged the district court's denial of their motion under Rule 41(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, seeking the return of property seized during searches they claimed were conducted without probable cause. The court evaluated the probable cause for the search warrants based on the totality of circumstances, identifying several undisputed facts that supported the magistrate judge's determination. These included phone calls made from De Payne's residence and workplace to a voicemail box linked to Pacific Bell Telephone Company, and the use of phone services exclusive to PBTC's systems, suggesting potential illegal hacking activities. The appellants also sought a Franks hearing to contest the affidavit's accuracy, alleging falsehoods and omissions related to criminal conduct under 18 U.S.C. Sections 1030 and 2511. However, the court found that even if the contested statements were excluded, the remaining evidence still supported probable cause. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of the Rule 41(e) motion, emphasizing that De Payne's claims of PBTC errors lacked corroborative evidence. Additionally, the appellants' challenge regarding the search's scope was deemed waived, as it was raised only in reply briefs. This ruling is non-precedential and cannot be cited except under specific Ninth Circuit rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Franks Hearing Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: To obtain a Franks hearing, the appellants needed to show intentional or reckless falsehoods in the affidavit that impacted the probable cause determination.
Reasoning: To obtain such a hearing, a defendant must show that the affidavit contained intentionally or recklessly false statements or misleading omissions that significantly impacted the probable cause determination.
Impact of Misrepresentations or Omissionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court assessed the cumulative effect of any alleged misrepresentations or omissions to determine if probable cause still existed.
Reasoning: The cumulative effect of any alleged misrepresentations or omissions must be assessed to determine if probable cause still exists after corrections.
Preservation of Issues for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants waived their challenge regarding the search's scope by raising it only in reply briefs.
Reasoning: The court affirms the decision, noting that the appellants waived their challenge regarding the search's scope by raising it only in reply briefs.
Probable Cause Determinationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined probable cause based on the totality of circumstances, indicating a fair probability of finding evidence of a crime.
Reasoning: The court evaluates probable cause based on the totality of circumstances, requiring a fair probability of finding evidence of a crime.
Rule 41(e) Motion for Return of Propertysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellants sought the return of property, arguing that the search warrants lacked probable cause.
Reasoning: Appellants Lewis De Payne and Bonnie Vitello appeal the district court's denial of their Rule 41(e) motion for the return of property, arguing that the search warrants executed against them lacked probable cause.