Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Harris

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

February 14, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT HARRIS, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUESTED DISCOVERY (ECF NO. 21)

          Helen Gillmor, United States Disrict Judge.

         On June 17, 2015, a Magistrate Judge issued a search warrant for two parcels that had arrived at the Waikiki Post Office addressed to “Scott Harris” at the zip code “96815.”

         The application for the search warrant was supported by an affidavit provided by United States Postal Inspector Brian W. Shaughnessy and an affidavit provided by Deputy Sheriff Patrick M. Lewis from the State of Hawaii, Department of Public Safety, Narcotics Detection Canine Unit.

         The search warrant was executed on the two parcels. Each parcel contained over 400 grams of methamphetamine.

         Defendant Harris has filed a Second Motion to Compel Discovery, seeking additional discovery relating to the canine narcotics detector “Rico.” Defendant's attorney has stated that he seeks the discovery in order to evaluate if he should file a Motion to Suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant.

         DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUESTED DISCOVERY (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.

         PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On August 10, 2017, the grand jury returned an Indictment charging Defendant Scott Harris, as follows:

Count 1: From in or around January 1, 2015 to and including July 1, 2015, Defendant did conspire to knowingly and intentionally distribute and possess, with intent to distribute, fifty (50) grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A);
Count 2: On or about May 15, 2015, Defendant did knowingly and intentionally possess, with intent to distribute, five (5) grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B); and,
Count 3: Beginning on or about June 17, 2015 and continuing to on or about June 18, 2015, Defendant did knowingly and intentionally attempt to possess, with intent to distribute, fifty (50) grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846.

(Indictment, ECF No. 1).

         On December 13, 2017, Defendant filed DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUESTED DISCOVERY. (ECF No. 18).

         On December 15, 2017, the Court held a hearing and granted Defendant's Motion to Compel, in part, and ordered the attorneys to meet and confer as to the extent of the Defendant's request and to determine if a further hearing was necessary. (ECF No. 20).

         The Parties consulted and further discovery was provided to Defendant.

         On January 6, 2018, Defendant filed DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUESTED DISCOVERY. (ECF No. 21).

         On January 12, 2018, the Government filed GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL REQUESTED DISCOVERY. (ECF No. 23).

         On January 17, 2018, the Court held a hearing on Defendant's Second Motion to Compel Discovery. (ECF No. 24).

         ANALYSIS

         There is a presumption of validity with respect to an affidavit supporting a search warrant. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72 (1978). A criminal defendant must make a substantial threshold offer of proof to challenge the search warrant before he is entitled to go beneath the search warrant to obtain additional information concerning the criminal investigation. United States v. Reeves, 210 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775, 780-81 (9th Cir. 1985)).

         A defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant made a knowing, intentional, or reckless false statement, or the affiant made a deliberate or reckless material omission in the warrant affidavit. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72; Stanert, 762 F.2d at 780-81. The defendant must also demonstrate that the allegedly false statement was necessary to the finding of probable cause in order to be entitled to a hearing to challenge the search warrant. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72.

         A defendant's preliminary showing cannot be merely conclusory. United States v. Chesher, 678 F.2d 1353, 1360 (9th Cir. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.