Sufficiency of Search Warrant Affidavit

The assignment content involves a case scenario where Police Officer Gilbert Caesar seeks a search warrant for Raul Franco and his live-in girlfriend Mildred's house, as well as their black pickup truck. The affidavit in support of the application highlights Caesar's previous interactions with a confidential reliable informant (CRI-1) who provided information about Raul and Mildred selling drugs, particularly heroin. Additionally, CRI-2 corroborated the information, stating that Rio (believed to be Raul) was also selling drugs. The affidavit includes details about the informants' credibility, Caesar's observations, and evidence of drug-related activity at the residence. The assignment requires an analysis of the issues relevant to a motion to suppress, including the sufficiency of the search warrant affidavit, and potential alternate arguments by the prosecution.

Case Scenario
Police Officer Gilbert Caesar sought a warrant to search the persons of
Raul Franco and his live-in girlfriend Mildred, the house where Raul and
Mildred resided, and a black pickup truck owned by Raul.
Police Officer Caesar’s Affidavit in Support of Application for Search
Warrant:
“In the latter part of 2015, I arrested a subject and took him to jail. While
enroute to the jail I asked the subject who he knew that was dealing
drugs. The subject told me of a person named Raul who lived on the
corner of Henry Avenue and Spring Street. I asked the subject how he
knew Raul was selling drugs. The subject told me his wife bought her
heroin from Raul. As I was driving towards the jail, I drove up Henry
Avenue and asked the subject to point the house out to me as we drove
past. As we drove past, the subject pointed to the residence on the
northeast corner of Henry Avenue and Spring Street. The subject also
said Raul drove the black pickup truck that was parked in front of the
residence.
“After dropping the subject off at the jail, I drove back to the residence
on the corner of Henry Avenue and Spring Street. The black truck was
still parked in front of the residence. I ran a registration check on the
vehicle. The return information from dispatch showed the vehicle was
registered to Raul Franco with an address of 51-03 Spring Street.
“On 01-07-16 Officer Justin Bassey and I were talking to a person who
herein will be referred to as confidential reliable informant one. (CRI-1).
I was talking to CRI-1 about people who sold drugs in this city,
specifically heroin or meth. CRI-1 told us a woman named Mildred and
her boyfriend Raul were selling heroin. I asked CRI-1 where Mildred
and Raul lived. CRI-1 said they lived on the corner of Henry Avenue
and Spring Street. I asked CRI-1 if Raul or Mildred drove any cars. CRI-
1 said [he/she] only knew of a black colored full size truck Raul drove. I

asked CRI-1 if [he/she] knew the last names of Mildred and Raul. CRI-1
said he/she knew Mildred’s last name was Charles. [He/she] said he/she
didn’t know Raul’s last name. I asked CRI-1 where Charles keeps her
drugs she sells. [He/she] said she keeps it in the front of her pants, so
that if she gets stopped by a male police officer, he won’t search the
front of her pants. CRI-1 said she also keeps it in a backpack she keeps
with her.
“I asked CRI-1 if Raul was also selling. CRI-1 said Raul does sell meth
and heroin, but not as much as Mildred.
“On 01-21-16 I talked with a person who herein will be referred to as
CRI-2. CRI-2 has given information to law enforcement in the past. The
information was corroborated and criminal cases were made behind the
information.
“I asked CRI-2 who [he/she] knew that was selling drugs. CRI-2 told me
of a woman named Mildred Charles who lived on the corner of Henry
Avenue and Spring Street. CRI-2 said Charles deals heroin and meth out
of her house with her boyfriend. I asked CRI-2 if [he/she] knew the
name of Charles’s boyfriend and if he was selling meth and heroin also.
CRI-2 said he/she only knew the boyfriend’s first name as Rio and Rio
was also selling meth and heroin out of the house.
“I asked CRI-2 if [he/she] knew of any vehicles Charles and Rio might
drive. CRI-2 said Rio drives a black truck and Charles drives a big red
sedan.
“I believe based on the previous information I have regarding Raul
Franco, that Rio is actually Raul. This is based on the registered owner
information on the black truck and other people telling me there is a
Raul living at the residence.
“I ran a criminal history check on Charles through dispatch. The return
information showed she has multiple arrests and convictions for

possession of controlled substance for sale, and transportation of
controlled substance.
“I have talked with CRI-2 on and off for the last two weeks, CRI-2 told
me both Raul and Mildred are still dealing out of their house on Henry
Avenue and Spring Street. I asked CRI-2 how [he/she] knew this. He/she
said [he/she] has been to their house recently and has seen people who
came to the house. CRI-2 saw Raul and Mildred take them in another
room. The people left a short time later. CRI-2 believed the people who
came to [the] house were buying drugs from Raul and Mildred.”
A magistrate signed the search warrant and the police served it on
February 3, 2016. In the house the police discovered methamphetamine,
marijuana, firearms, and paraphernalia associated with drug use and
sales. The police detained defendant Raul at a different location as he
was getting into his vehicle, and discovered on his person and in a
backpack methamphetamine, marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms,
prescription pills, and two syringes.
The District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant Raul with
various narcotics offenses. Raul’s attorney moved to suppress all the
evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant.
ASSIGNMENT:
1. Write a complete analysis of all of the issues that Raul’s attorney
should include in the motion to suppress. Apply relevant U.S. Supreme
Court and Constitutional Law in your analysis.
2. What are the alternate arguments in support of the affidavit's
sufficiency that should be made by the prosecution?
3. If the prosecution fails in its argument in favor of the sufficiency of
the search warrant affidavit, explain in detail whether the “good faith”
exception to the exclusionary rule is applicable or inapplicable