Background
Federal officers obtained a warrant to search James Casady Cangro’s part-time residence in Albuquerque, New Mexico, based on tips from a confidential informant and surveillance. The search yielded distribution quantities of drugs and over a dozen firearms. Cangro moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and the affidavit contained material misstatements under Franks v. Delaware. The district court denied the motion, ruling the good-faith exception applied and that Cangro failed to make a substantial preliminary showing for a Franks hearing. Cangro pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal the suppression decision.
The court’s reasoning
The Tenth Circuit held that the search-warrant affidavit provided probable cause even when accounting for the alleged misstatements and omissions. The court found the informant’s tips were sufficiently corroborated, establishing the informant’s veracity, reliability, and basis of knowledge. Furthermore, the affidavit satisfied the nexus requirement because it linked Cangro to drug trafficking and included Agent Acee’s experience that drug traffickers often keep evidence in their homes. Since probable cause existed, the alleged misstatements were not material, and the Franks challenge failed.
Even accounting for the alleged misstatements and omissions, the affidavit provided probable cause for the search.
United States v. Cangro, 25-2079 (10th Cir. May 19, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that a finding of probable cause obviates the need to adjudicate Franks challenges regarding material misstatements. It also clarifies that in drug trafficking cases, an affiant’s general experience that dealers keep evidence at home can satisfy the nexus requirement without direct observation of criminal activity at the specific location.