United States v. Davis (939 F. Supp. 2d 535, 2013)

ORDER

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge. ’

This matter comes before the court on defendants’' motion to suppress (DE 36). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. entered memorandum and recommendation (“M & R”) wherein he recommends that the court grant in part and deny in part defendants’ motion to suppress. Defendants timely filed objections to the M & R, and the government did not respond in the time allotted. In this posture, issues raised are ripe for ruling. For the following reasons, the court ADOPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge in large part and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendants’ motion to suppress.

BACKGROUND

Defendants Mark Davis (“Davis”) and LaWanda Ragland (“Ragland”) were indicted on January 19, 2012, with conspiracy to commit access device fraud and to possess stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) and 2; aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A and 2; and eleven (11) counts of possession of stolen mail, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1708 and 2. On April 27, 2012, defendants filed the instant motion, seeking to suppress all evidence resulting from a May 14, 2008, search of defendants’ residence at 217 Sarah Lane, in Vance County, North Carolina. Police conducted the search after learning from Lee Harrell (“Harrell”), then manager of what was a Crusader Rent to Own store (“Crusader”), that Robert Hicks, a non-party, had moved goods he rented from Crusader — namely a washer and dryer — to 217 Sarah Lane in violation of his rental agreement. Based upon what they maintain they were told by Harrell in the course of their conversation with him, police were looking for evidence of possession of stolen goods and evidence of obtaining property by false pretenses.

The magistrate judge conducted a Franks and general suppression hearing on June 27, 2012. At hearing the government presented the testimony of Henderson City Attorney John H. Zollicoffer, Jr., Sergeant Durwood Campbell (“Campbell”) of the Vance County Sheriffs Department (“VCSD”), and Lieutenants Steven Vaughn (“Vaughn”) and Christopher Ball (“Ball”) of the Henderson Police Department (“HPD”). Defendants presented the testimony Harrell, and of Michael D. Waters (“Waters”), who served as defendant Davis’s attorney in state court. The parties filed supplemental memoranda after the hearing which were considered as outlined in the M & R. The court adopts and incorporates herein the statement of facts contained in the M & R, including the summary of testimony given at hearing.

COURT’S DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge’s M & R to which specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). . The court does not perform a de novo review where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.1982). Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the court reviews only for “clear error,” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M & R. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir.2005); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). Upon careful review of the record, “the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

B. Analysis

1. Franks and the Warrant Affidavit

Defendants argue that suppression of evidence seized from the search of 217 Sarah Lane is necessary under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). In Franks the Supreme Court provided that if a defendant “makes a substantiaL preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and ... the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause,” he is entitled to a hearing on the matter. Id. at 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674.

In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.

Id. at 156, 98 S.Ct. 2674.

Hearing, as noted, was held before the magistrate judge. Defendants object to the resulting recommended finding that they have shown neither that Ball knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, made false statements in the search warrant affidavit, nor that he intentionally omitted facts from the search warrant affidavit so as to mislead the magistrate into issuing the search warrant, or omitted them with reckless disregard. Defendants, relying on testimony by Harrell and Waters as well as Harrell’s sworn affidavit, argue that false statements and material omissions were made, contending that (1) Harrell informed Ball that he had already repossessed the washer and dryer, (2) Harrell did not report seeing “nine big screen televisions, four Xbox 360s, and two computers in every room” (3) Harrell did not tell officers he believed stolen property was located in 217 Sarah Lane, and (4) Ball omitted from the affidavit that Harrell had obtained permission to enter 217 Sarah Lane and retrieve the washer and dryer.

Because of the conflicting testimony of government and defense witnesses, determination of this issue turns on the credibility of witnesses called to testify at the Franks hearing. “[Rjeview of factual findings under the clearly-erroneous standard — with its deference to the trier of fact — is the rule, not the exception.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 575, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). The Supreme Court went on to hold that

“[wjhen findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, Rule 52(a) demands even greater deference to the trial court’s findings; for only the trial judge can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding of and belief in what is said.”

Id.; see also Beatty v. Chesapeake Center, Inc., 818 F.2d 318, 321 (4th Cir.1987) (“The unique opportunity to observe the demean- or of witnesses requires that the trier of fact’s credibility determinations be accorded great deference.”). As was noted above, the district court reviews de novo those portions, of a magistrate judge’s M & R to which specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). While a “de novo determination is not necessarily the same as a de novo hearing ... even as to those findings based on the magistrate’s judgment as to the credibility of the witnesses before him,” Proctor v. State Government of North Carolina, 830 F.2d 514, 518 n. 2 (4th Cir.1987), “it is unlikely that a district judge would reject a magistrate’s proposed findings on credibility when those findings are dispositive and substitute the judge’s own appraisal.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 681 n. 7, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980).

The court has conducted a thorough de novo review of the record including defendant’s motion to suppress, the transcripts of the hearing before the magistrate judge, the M & R, and defendants’ objections thereto, and of the governing law. The court finds credible the version of the events leading up to and surrounding the May 14, 2008, search of 217 Sarah Lane related by Lieutenants Ball and Vaughn, and Sergeant Campbell. Campbell testified that on 2:00 p.m., May 13, 2008, Harrell requested that Campbell accompany him to 217 Sarah Lane while Harrell looked for some missing property. Tr. Suppression Hr’g. 34:21-24. The two went to that address, spoke to a man there who informed there was a washer and dryer in the house, and Harrell went inside to look but Campbell did not go inside. Id. at 42:14-21. Campbell’s May 13, 2008, escort of Harrell was documented by a VCSD call-detail report. Id. at 37:9-38:20.

Vaughn’s testimony is that at around 7:00 p.m. on May 13, 2008, he responded to the Crusader where Harrell requested his help in retrieving the washer, and dryer from 217 Sarah Lane. Id. at 45:6-21. Harrell informed Vaughn that he had seen an excessive amount of electronics there which' he believed were stolen. Id. at 48:1-10. Vaughn passed this information on to other officers in the Henderson Police Department the next morning, May 14, 2008. Id., at 49:1-21.

Finally, Ball testified that after Vaughn’s report, he went to Crusader to speak with Harrell. Id. at 63:16-19. Harrell told Ball that he was missing two televisions, a washer, and a dryer, and that he had gone out the previous day and verified that the washer and dryer were at 217 Sarah Lane by their serial numbers. Id. at 64:20-24. He also told Ball he thought other stolen property was located on the premises, and that he had seen nine televisions, four Xboxes, and two computers there. Id. at 65:6-11. Ball then obtained a search warrant, assembled a search team, and went to 217 Sarah Lane, and upon arrival found that Harrell had come, repossessed the washer and dryer, and left, five minutes prior. Id. at 86:14-22.

In contrast to the consistent and straightforward testimony of the above officers, Harrell’s narrative conflicts not only with the testimony of the officers, but, as noted in the M & R, also with VCSD records as to the date of his trip to 217 Sarah Lane with Sergeant Campbell, and with what he earlier told Waters as to the timing of his repossession of the washer and dryer. As was also noted, Harrell’s testimony that he did not initiate contact with HPD regarding the rented property fails to explain why HPD officers approached him in the first place, and why Ball knew the serial number of the washer and dryer to put down in his warrant affidavit. Ball’s testimony, on the other hand, was consistent with that of Vaughn and Campbell. Moreover, the magistrate judge found Ball’s testimony credible. For all of these reasons, the court adopts as its own the finding that Ball’s testimony was credible and truthful, and therefore also adopts the finding that Ball did not knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly make false representation or material omissions in the warrant affidavit.

2. The Good Faith Exception

Defendants next object to the recommendation that the court find that, although the warrant in this case was invalid for lack of probable cause, suppression of the evidence found is inappropriate where the officers acted in good faith reliance on the search warrant obtained. Fruits of a search conducted pursuant to a warrant should not be suppressed when the warrant is subsequently found invalid for lack of probable cause unless “a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite the magistrate’s authorization.” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 n. 23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). The Court outlined four circumstances in which this “good faith exception” is inapplicable, namely, when

(1) “the magistrate ... was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth”;

(2) the magistrate acted as a rubber stamp for the officers and so “wholly abandoned” his detached and neutral “judicial role”;

(3) “an affidavit [is] so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable”; or

(4) “a warrant [is] so facially deficient— i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized— that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.”

United States v. Bynum, 293 F.3d 192, 195 (4th Cir.2002) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405).

Defendants maintain that the first three circumstances precluding application of the good faith exception apply here. Where the court has already found that Ball did not knowingly or recklessly include false information or material omissions, the first circumstance is inapplicable.

Nor is there evidence that the magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial role and acted as a rubber stamp for Ball. Defendants argue that the magistrate acted as a mere rubber stamp because he authorized a search outside of the Henderson city limits and that such a search is illegal under “well-established law.” As was made clear at hearing, however, there is genuine disagreement among reputable local attorneys and law enforcement as to the extent of the HPD’s jurisdiction to execute search warrants beyond Henderson city limits based upon Henderson’s charter. While the North Carolina Attorney General issued an opinion letter in 1958 taking the position that the city charter does not grant HPD officers jurisdiction to execute search warrants outside of city limits, no court has ever ruled on the issue. Thus, there is no “well-established law” showing that a search outside of Henderson city limits by HPD is illegal and there is otherwise no evidence that the magistrate abandoned his judicial role. Cf. Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 326-27, 99 S.Ct. 2319, 60 L.Ed.2d 920 (1979) (judge abandoned his judicial role and acted as a member — if not leader — óf police search party when he accompanied a police officers to an adult book store and inspected materials inside, authorizing seizures of those he deemed obscene).

Finally, the warrant affidavit did not so lack indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in probable cause entirely unreasonable. A belief in probable cause may be supported by something less than a substantial basis yet not be entirely unreasonable. “‘Substantial basis’ provides the measure for determination of whether probable cause exists in the first instance. If a lack of substantial basis prevented application of the Leon objective good faith exception, the exception would be devoid of substance.” Bynum, 293 F.3d at 195. “[I]n determining an officer’s good faith, a court may properly look beyond the facts stated in the affidavit and consider uncontroverted facts known to the officers but inadvertently not disclosed to the magistrate.” United States v. McKenzie-Gude, 671 F.3d 452, 459 (4th Cir.2011).

For the reasons given in the thoughtful and thorough M & R, in this case it was not entirely unreasonable for officers to rely on the issued warrant. The warrant affidavit explains who Harrell is, notes that Harrell spoke with Ball, and includes information regarding what Harrell saw inside 217 Sarah Lane. It also informs that Harrell discovered that the employer provided by Hicks on his rental application was in fact fraudulent.

Looking beyond the four corners of the affidavit, Ball also spoke with Harrell in person. This allowed Ball to judge his credibility and “expose[d] [Harrell] to accountability for making a false statement.” United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 523 (4th Cir.2004). Harrell also provided Ball with documents from the investigation that Harrell had conducted into the location of the missing property as well as documents from other rental companies counseling against renting to Hicks. Moreover, as manager of the Crusader Rent to Own, Harrell had an interest in recovering stolen property. See id. (informants’ interest in victim’s well-being gave them incentive to be truthful).

This was not a situation where the warrant was supported merely by an affidavit that “depended on information from an unnamed informant, and provided no indication of that informant’s truthfulness or reliability.” United States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116, 120 (4th Cir.1996). Rather, in looking to the information contained in' the affidavit, as well as what was known to Ball, official reliance on this warrant was not entirely unreasonable. See DeQuasie, 373 F.3d at 522-23 (holding that Leon exception was applicable where two informants told police in a face-to-face meeting that a family member, Lora, was being held captive at the defendant’s residence,' where the informants’ only source of this information was Lora’s sister Tiffany,' who accompanied Lora to defendant’s residence, and police did not independently corroborate the information provided by the informants).

Defendants, however, argue that Ball was reckless in preparing the warrant where he failed to attempt to contact Hicks, the VCSD, or any of the names listed by Hicks on the rental application. Thus they argue that he could not be justified in believing there were sufficient facts to establish probable cause. Defendants cite two First Circuit cases, United States v. Fuccillo, 808 F.2d 173 (1st Cir.1987), and United States v. Vigeant, 176 F.3d 565 (1st Cir.1999). Both cases are neither binding on this court nor applicable to the facts of this case.

The First Circuit in Fuccillo refused to apply the good-faith exception to agents who “were reckless in not including in the affidavit information which was known or easily accessible to them.” 808 F.2d at 178. That case, however, dealt with a warrant invalidated for lack of particularity where the agents could have provided information which would have allowed for a more limited warrant. Id. at 176-77. Here the issue is not whether Ball withheld information allowing him to search more broadly than he legally could, but whether or not his belief in probable cause was entirely unreasonable. In Vigeant. the court of appeals found that the good faith exception did not apply where the magistrate was misled by false information contained in the affidavit. 176 F.3d at 571-72. Here the court has determined that false statements were not knowingly or recklessly made. Therefore Vigeant is also inapposite. Thus the court overrules defendants’ objection and adopts the recommendation that the good faith exception applies here.

3. Particularity of the Search Warrant

Defendants’ next objection is to the recommendation that the court find the warrant described the items to be seized with sufficient particularity. Once again, for the reasons outlined in the M & R, defendants’ objection is overruled. The Fourth Amendment provides that warrants must “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. CONST, amend. IV. This particularity requirement is meant to ensure that citizens are not subjected to “a general, exploratory rummaging in [their] belongings.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). “The degree of specificity required when describing the goods to be seized may necessarily vary according to the circumstances and type of items involved ... (T)here is a practical margin of flexibility permitted by the constitutional requirement for particularity in the description of items to be seized.” United States v. Torch, 609 F.2d 1088, 1090 (4th Cir.1979) (quoting United States v. Davis, 542 F.2d 743, 745 (8th Cir.1976)). Additionally, in assessing the specificity of a warrant, all parts should be read together. United States v. Weston, 962 F.2d 8, 1992 WL 90554, at *5 (4th Cir. Apr. 30, 1992) (unpublished table decision). Where a warrant limits police discretion by allowing them only to seize evidence of a particular crime it is generally not overbroad. United States v. Jones, 31 F.3d 1304, 1313 (4th Cir.1994).

In this case, while the search warrant describes certain broad categories of items to be searched for and seized, such as “documents related to fraudulent activities; photographs; any other stolen property;” it also lists two North Carolina crimes: possession of stolen property, and obtaining property by false pretense, in violation of N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 14-71.1 and 14-100. Thus officers were instructed to look only for items related to those particular crimes.

As set forth in the M & R, evidence of fraudulent schemes is generally in the form of multiple documents and it is difficult to define in advance exactly what those documents are where officers may not know exactly what documents will show fraud. Thus in cases involving fraud, warrants are often broader. See, e.g., In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 920 F.2d 235, 239 (4th Cir.1990) (authorizing search and seizure for a broad swath of “[b]ooks, records and documents relative tó the financial transactions of [defendants]”). Here, the requirements of the warrant properly limited police in what they were to search for and seize by limiting their search to items of evidence of two specific crimes. See Jones, 31 F.3d at 1313. The warrant did not permit a general search of the premises, and thus is not invalid for lack of particularity.

4. Execution of the Warrant

Defendants’ final objection is to the recommended finding that the officers validly executed the warrant. Defendants argue the officers exceeded the scope of the warrant, and conducted an impermissible general search. When determining the permissible breadth of a search, a warrant “is not to be assessed in a hypertechnical manner.” United States v. Srivastava, 540 F.3d 277, 289 (4th Cir.2008). Instead, it ought to be read in “a commonsense and realistic fashion.” Id. (quoting United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684, (1965)). A search will not be found overbroad merely because it results in additional criminal charges. United States v. Williams, 592 F.3d 511, 520 (4th Cir.2010). “[T]he relevant inquiry is whether the ... seizures were reasonable under all the circumstances.” United States v. Squillacote, 221 F.3d 542, 557 (4th Cir.2000).

Moreover, when some items not identified in the warrant are improperly-seized, suppression of items validly seized is generally not necessary. United States v. Robinson, 275 F.3d 371, 381 (4th Cir.2001). Rather, blanket suppression is an “extraordinary remedy that should be used only when the violations of the warrant’s requirements are so extreme that the search is essentially transformed into an impermissible general search.” Id.

In this case, the warrant authorized police to search for evidence relating to two North Carolina crimes: possession of stolen property and obtaining property by false pretenses. The police seized three hundred and sixty-nine (369) items. Most of the items seized were checks, stolen mail, computer equipment, credit cards, social security cards, and bills. All of these items were potential evidence of the above crimes and so reasonably seized. See United States v. Phillips, 588 F.3d 218, 227 (4th Cir.2009) (officers justified in seizing documents where they reasonably appeared to them to be probative of crimes within the scope of the warrant and “[o]nly with the benefit of hindsight” could it be determined that such documents were primarily probative of securities fraud instead).

As noted in the M & R, however, some items seized did not potentially relate to the crimes listed in the warrant. It was recommended in the M & R that the court find the following items to be outside the scope of the warrant: ammunition, a rifle, earphones, a silver shoebox and a digital recording entitled “Van Highlights” (“DVD”). With the exception of the rifle and ammunition, discussed further below, the court agrees. The court also finds that a pair of men’s sweatpants and a men’s pullover seized were not within the scope of the warrant where there is no clear relationship between these items and possession of stolen property or obtaining property by false pretenses. The vast majority, however, of the three hundred and sixty-nine (369) items seized were within the scope of the search warrant. Accordingly, blanket suppression is inappropriate, and suppression is only granted as to the earphones, shoebox, Recorded DVD, and men’s clothing.

With respect to the rifle and ammunition, the court finds that their seizure is justified under the plain view exception.

For the plain view exception to the warrant rule to apply, the government must show that: (1) the officer was lawfully in a place from which the object could be viewed; (2) the officer had a “lawful right of access” to the seized items; and (3) the incriminating character of the items was immediately apparent.

United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 226, 233 (4th Cir.2012).

Here, police were lawfully in a place from which they could see the rifle and ammunition, and had lawful rights of access to those items because their search was valid under Leon, and the rifle and ammunition were found in places where objects of the search — such as documents — could be found. See United States v. Bullard, 103 F.3d 121, 1996 WL 683790, at *3 (4th Cir. Nov. 27, 1996) (unpublished table decision) (seizure of a firearm found in an armoir by police searching for evidence of bank fraud met the first two conditions in the plain view analysis where a search was valid under the good faith exception and the firearm was found in a place where evidence of bank fraud could be found).

Moreover, while executing the warrant, Ball contacted the police department and learned that defendant Davis had a prior felony conviction. Thus, although it appears the officers performing the search did not know defendant Davis was a convicted felon the moment they discovered the firearm and ammunition, it is clear that while on the premises they learned of Davis’s prior felony conviction, Tr. Suppression Hr’g. 82:21-24,83:4-8, thus making the incriminating nature of the item immediately apparent and justifying its seizure. Cf. United States v. Wells, 98 F.3d 808, 809-10 (4th Cir.1996) (under the plain view exception an agent searching the defendant’s house for evidence of bank fraud who discovered a firearm was justified in subsequently seizing it after reporting it to his supervisor who informed the agent that the defendant was a convicted felon); see also United State v. Frederick, 152 Fed.Appx. 470, 472-73 (6th Cir.2005) (officers were, justified in temporarily seizing a firearm during the course of a search because of the danger it presented, and upon learning the defendant was a convicted felon, to permanently seize it under the plain view exception); United States v. Robinson, 756 F.2d 56, 60 (8th Cir.1985) (officers who temporarily seized a weapon from defendant during the course of a search for marijuana and held it for safety subsequently properly permanently seized it under the plain view exception when coming across a letter from the state probation office showing that the defendant was a convicted felon).

CONCLUSION

Upon de novo review 'of those portions of the magistrate judge’s M & R to which specific objections have been filed, and upon considered review of those portions of the M & R to which no such objection has been made, the court overrules defendants’ objections, ADOPTS' the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge in large part, GRANTS defendants’ motion to suppress with respect to the seized the earphones, shoebox, DVD, and men’s clothing, and DENIES the motion in remaining part.

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

ROBERT B. JONES, JR., United States Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the Joint Motion to Suppress [DE-36] filed by Defendants Mark Davis and LaWanda Ragland (“Defendants”). The motion was referred to this court and is considered here as a recommendation to the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(1). The government has responded [DE-44] to the motion and the court held a hearing to further develop the record. The parties have subsequently submitted post-hearing briefing. Accordingly, the motion is ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, it is the recommendation of this court that Defendants’ motion be denied in part, allowed in part.

BACKGROUND

On January 18, 2012, a Grand Jury sitting in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned a fourteen-count indictment against Defendants Davis and Ragland. [DE-10]. Defendants were charged with conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 1), access device fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1029(a)(3) & 2 (Count 2), aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A & 2 (.Count 3), and possession of stolen mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1708 & 2 (Counts 4-14). Defendants’ arraignment in this matter has been held in abeyance pending a ruling on Defendants’ motion to suppress and for a Franks hearing. [DE-42],

According to Defendants’ motion and supporting memorandum, the indictment arose out of the execution of a search warrant at 217 Sarah Lane, located in Vance County, North Carolina by officers of the Henderson Police Department (“HPD”). Defs.’ Joint Mot. to Suppress & for a Franks Hr’g (“Defs.’ Mot.”) ¶ 2 [DE-36]; Defs.’ Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Suppress & for a Franks Hr’g (“Defs.’ Mem.”) at 1 [DE-37]. The search warrant purported to seek the recovery of property rented from Crusader Rent-to-Own (“Crusader”) located in Henderson, North Carolina. Defs.’ Mot. ¶ 2; Defs.’ Mem. at 5-8. Defendants contend the search warrant application is “rife with false statements and misleading omissions, which are indispensable to the finding of probable cause.” Defs.’ Mot. ¶ 5. Defendants contend that suppression of the evidence is required in accordance with Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). Id. ¶ 6. Alternatively, Defendants contend that if the search warrant survives a Franks inquiry, suppression of the evidence is nonetheless required based on numerous Fourth Amendment violations present in the warrant and its execution. Defs.’ Mot. ¶ 7; Joint Mem. of Law in Supp. of Suppression of Evid. (“Defs.’ Supp. Mem.”) [DE-87]. Defendants have moved further to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to a federal search warrant ■ issued December 18, 2009 on the grounds that the federal search warrant relies entirely on false information from the HPD and evidence illegally obtained during the search of 217 Sarah Lane. Defs! Mot. ¶ 9.

On May 15, 2012, the government responded to Defendants’ motion and did not oppose Defendants’ request for a Franks hearing. United States’s Resp. to Defs! Mot. (“Gov’t’s Resp.”) [DE-44]. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for a Franks hearing was allowed [DE-49] and on June 27, 2012, this court held a Franks /Suppression hearing. [DE-68]. At the hearing, Defendants presented the testimony of Lee Harrell and Michael D. Waters and the government presented the testimony of John H. Zollicoffer, Jr., Sergeant Durwood Campbell of the Vance County Sheriffs Office and Lieutenants Steven Vaughn and Christopher Ball of the HPD. [DE-76].

Following the hearing, the government submitted additional briefing. See United States’s Supp. Resp. in Opp’n to Defs! Mot. to Suppress (“Gov’t’s Supp. Resp.”) [DE-71, 73]. Defendants moved alternatively to strike the government’s supplemental briefing or to be permitted to submit additional briefing of their own. [DE-72], The court permitted Defendants additional time to submit their own post-hearing briefing and Defendants have filed a timely supplemental brief. See Defs! Supp. Mem. [DE-87].

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Search Warrant Authorizing the Search of 217 Sarah Lane

The search warrant was issued in the Matter of Robert Hicks Jr., 217 Sarah Lane Henderson, North Carolina on May 14, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. by North Carolina Magistrate Terry. Def. Hr’g. Ex. F; Gov’t Hr’g. Exs. 27-34. Detective CD Ball, now Lieutenant Ball (“Ball”), of the HPD provided a sworn affidavit in support of the application.for the search warrant.

In relevant part, the search warrant affidavit provides the following information from Ball:

Section 2 Person or Property to be Seized

... latent prints; Crosley Washer (SN: XC74310646); Crosley Dryer (SN: XD74311353); documentation related to the control.of 217 Sarah Lane; documerits related to fraudulent activities; photographs; any other stolen property; any and all evidence that may relate to the possession of stolen property from Crusader Rent to Own, 120 Raleigh Rd Henderson, NC, which constitutes evidence of the crime of Possession of Stolen Property and Obtain Property by False Pretense, which in violation of N.C.G.S. 14-71.1 and N.C.G.S. 14-100, and the identity of the person, or persons, participating in this crime, or crimes. This property or evidence will be located at ...

Section 3 Location to be Searched

Premises

... 217 Sarah Lane Henderson, North Carolina and its curtilage. Residence will be the last double-wide trailer on the left. Double-wide will be white in color. A green Mercedes, a silver car, and a Tahoe will be in the yard. A pit-bull will also be in the yard.

Section 4 Facts to Establish Probable Cause

The applicant swears to the following facts to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant:

On 05/14/08, Manager Lee Harrell with Crusader, stated that he has been to 217 Sarah Lane on 05/13/08 and has located the Crosley Washer (SN:XC74310646) and Crosley Dryer (SN:XD74311353) that was rented from his store. He stated that he looked at the serial numbers on the items and verified them to be from his store.

On 5/14/08, Manager Lee Harrell, stated that a Robert Hicks of 2073 Julia Ave had obtained the property. Manager stated that he checked the listed employer, 1001 Home Improvement of 455 Brookwood Lane, to be a fraudulent business [sic]. Manager stated the location listed was a trailer park. He stated that he further determined that the location of 2073 Julia Ave where the property was delivered was not Mr. Robert Hicks residence. . Manager stated that he followed up on the references listed on the application and located the washer and dryer at 217 Sarah Lane. Application lists LaWanda Ragland as being the resident.

Manager also stated that Mr. Hicks has obtained property from other rental businesses in the Henderson area. 05/14/08, Manager stated that while checking inside 217 Sarah Lane for the washer and dryer he observed nine big screen televisions, four Xbox 360s, and two computers in every' room. Manager stated based on his experiences he believed the items to be stolen.

Section 5 Closing Statement

Based on the fact the stolen items from Crusader’s was seen by the manager on 05/13/08 inside the residence of 217 Sarah Lane, and the serial numbers were verified by the manager to be from the store, I believe the items listed in this application will be located at 217 Sarah Lane.

Based on the fact that the washer and dryer, were obtained by fraudulently [sic] means I believe other items from different business [sic] may have been obtained in the same manner. Based on my training and experience I believe the other items that the manager saw inside the residence to be stolen or fraudulently obtained.

Based on my training and experience where stolen items are located numerous other stolen items are also located. Based on the fact that numerous persons were listed on the application for the rental of the washer and dryer, I believe other individuals are involved along with Robert Hicks. I believe that information identifying these individuals or other fraudulent documentation will be located at 217 Sarah Lane.

Based on my training, knowledge, and experience, along with the above facts, I believe, I will find the items listed in this application, and that they will be located at the place, or places specified above. I request the court issue a warrant to search the location, or locations in this application.

Def. Hr’g Ex. F; Gov’t Hr’g Exs. 30-32.

The search warrant inventory, signed by Ball on May 16, 2008, indicates an item identified as LG .42* TV SN:MXWE07433 was seized pursuant to the search of 217 Sarah Lane. Def. Hr’g Ex. F; Gov’t Hr’g Exs. 33-34. The inventory indicates further that .law .enforcement will hold the seized property subject to a court order. Def. Hr’g Ex. F; Gov’t Hr’g Ex. 34.

The Henderson City Charter

The HPD has taken the position that based upon the city charter, the police have the authority to execute search warrants outside the Henderson city limits. Hr’g Tr. pp. 28, 254-55. The Charter for the City of Henderson in effect at the time of the search warrant provides the following:

The' members of the police department and the chief of the department shall have all the powers and authority now, or which may hereafter be vested in sheriffs and constables for the preservation of peace of the city and for suppressing disturbances and arresting offenders, which authority of the police department shall not be confined to the corporate limits of the city, but may be exercised anywhere in Vance County.

Hr’g Tr. pp. 17-18; Gov’t Exs. 63, 64. In 1958, the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina issued a formal opinion letter on the authority of the HPD in Vance County, wherein the Attorney General took the position that the city charter provision allowing the police extraterritorial jurisdiction does not extend to the execution of search warrants outside the city limits. Hr’g Tr. pp. 24-26; Def. Hr’g Ex. J. The city attorney, however, contends the charter permits the execution of search warrants by Henderson police outside the city limits, while certain attorneys practicing in the local courts of Vance County disagree. Hr’g Tr. pp. 20, 254-55. No opinions have been issued subsequently by the North- Carolina Attorney General nor has this issue been resolved by a court ruling. Hr’g Tr. pp. 27, 28-29, 256, 258-59.

Testimony of Sergeant Durwood Campbell

Sergeant Durwood Campbell (“Campbell”), a Deputy Sheriff of the Vance County Sheriffs office, testified that on May 13, 2008, a gentleman from Crusader, identified as Lee Harrell (“Harrell”), entered the Sheriffs office and requested an escort to a house in order to search for some property. Hr’g Tr. pp. 34-35. At approximately 2 p.m. on May 13, 2008, Campbell provided the escort to 217 Sarah Lane driving in his own patrol car while Harrell drove to the residence in another vehicle. Campbell testified that his responsibility in providing an escort was to ensure Harrell’s safety, but that he would need a court order to assist Harrell in retrieving any property. Hr’g Tr. pp. 35, 41. When they arrived at the residence, Harrell knocked on the door and an older African-American male answered. The African-American male told Harrell that there was a washer and dryer in the house and Campbell stated that Harrell may have entered the house to see if the washer was the property for which he was searching. Hr’g Tr. pp. 41-42. Campbell did not enter the house and does not know what Harrell saw while he was inside the house. Hr’g Tr. pp. 42-43. The entire encounter lasted approximately twenty-five minutes. Hr’g Tr. p. 38.

Testimony of Lieutenant Steven Vaughn

Lieutenant Vaughn (“Vaughn”) testified that he received information to contact Harrell at Crusader regarding the retrieval of a washer and dryer from 217 Sarah Lane. Hr’g Tr. p. 45. Vaughn met with Harrell at Crusader on the evening of May 13, 2008 between 6:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. Hr’g Tr. pp. 44-45. Harrell told Vaughn that he wanted the police to go to 217 Sarah Lane to retrieve a washer and dryer. Hr’g Tr. p. 47. Vaughn explained that the recovery of rental property is a civil matter not involving the police, and that Harrell should contact the Vance County Sheriffs office and obtain a writ from a court to recover the property. Hr’g Tr. pp. 47, 51, 53, 55-56. After Vaughn told Harrell that the police could not assist him, Harrell then told Vaughn that the police should probably go to 217 Sarah Lane because' Harrell had seen a large number of electronics, televisions, play stations, Xboxes and computers in the house which was stolen property. Hr’g Tr. p. 48. Vaughn told Harrell to contact the sheriffs office for assistance in recovering his property and that he would pass along the information regarding the stolen property to other officers. Hr’g Tr. p. 55.

Testimony of Lieutenant Christopher Ball

Ball is currently assigned to the Special Operations Division of the HPD. In 2008, Ball was a detective with the HPD and in that capacity he was assigned primarily to investigate fraud cases and was the lead investigator assigned to this case. Hr’g Tr. pp. 57-59.

On May 14, 2008, at roll call briefing, Vaughn advised that there was rental property from Crusader located at 217 Sarah Lane and Ball was assigned to speak to with Harrell. Hr’g Tr. p. 63. At approximately 10 a.m., Ball and Detective Jackson met with Harrell at Crusader. In their meeting, Harrell explained that Crusader had delivered a washer and dryer and two televisions tó Robert Hicks at 2073 Julia Avenue and that these items had been subsequently moved to 217 Sarah Lane. Hr’g Tr. p. 64.

Harrell provided Ball with documentation from an investigation that Harrell had conducted regarding the rental of these items by Hicks. Hr’g Tr. p. 64. These documents included the rental application completed by Hicks which contained the name and address of Hicks’ business or employer, as well as several individuals listed as references. Harrell informed Ball that he had attempted to verify the information listed in these documents, and determined the listed business was fictitious because the address corresponding to the business was located in a trailer park. Hr’g Tr. pp. 74, 108-09. In addition, according to Ball, Harrell was not able.to confirm an individual named Ann Williams who was listed as a reference, and thus Harrell thought this person was fictitious. Hr’g Tr. p. 108. Harrell also called at least one other reference on the rental application and could not verify the individual named. Harrell also told Ball that the address Hicks had provided as his home address and where the property had been delivered was- inaccurate. Hr’g Tr. p. 74. Harrell also told Ball that Hicks had rented property from other rental companies and Harrell provided Ball with documents, from another rental company advising against renting to Hicks. Hr’g Tr. pp. 64,74. ‘

Harrell told Ball further that he had gone to 217 Sarah Lane the previous day, May 13, 2008, with a .Vance County Deputy Sheriff. Hr’g Tr. pp. 63, 73, 98. Although the owners were not at the residence at the time, an older African-American male allowed Harrell to enter the house wherein Harrell verified by serial number the rented washer and dryer from Crusader. Hr’g Tr. pp. 64-65, 73. Harrell also told Ball that he was suspicious that other property he saw in the home was stolen. Hr’g Tr. pp. 65, 73. According to Ball, Harrell said there were nine large-screen televisions in the house along with four X-boxes and two computers. Hr’g Tr. pp. 65, 75. Harrell said, based on his experience, he believed the other merchandise he saw was “fraudulently obtained stolen.” Hr’g Tr. pp. 67, 75. Harrell told Ball that he believed these items were stolen because Harrell thought it was odd that there would be that many televisions in a house of that particular size, a modest residence. Hr’g Tr. pp. 67-68. Based on Harrell having performed his own investigation and his being “involved in the [rental] industry in tracking down rental property,” Ball believed Harrell “to be reliable in knowing what was fraudulent and what [was] not fraudulent.” Hr’g Tr. p. 112.

Ball informed Harrell that he would apply for a search warrant to search the residence for stolen property and advised Harrell not to interfere with the investigation. Hr’g Tr. pp. 68, 120. During then-meeting, Harrell did not say anything to Ball about having permission to retrieve the property from the residence, nor did Harrell inform Ball that he was in fact going to retrieve the washer and dryer himself. Hr’g Tr. pp. 120, 161. After meeting with Harrell, Ball began drafting the search warrant application. Hr’g Tr. pp. 68-69. Ball wrote a report and search warrant application based on his notes from his conversation with Harrell. Hr’g Tr. pp. 112-13. Ball relied on what he learned from Harrell and performed no further investigation. Hr’g Tr. pp. 100, 123-24,133-34.

Shortly before noon on May 14, 2008, Ball went to the magistrate’s office located in Henderson after having drafted the search warrant application. Hr’g Tr. p. 93. The magistrate did not inquire of Ball whether the proposed search was to be performed outside the Henderson city limits. Hr’g Tr. p. 71. Ball is not certain of the distance between 217 Sarah Lane and the Henderson city limits, but stated it is “[b]etween less than two miles.” Hr’g Tr. p. 69.

After the magistrate issued the search warrant, Ball returned to the police department to assemble and prepare the search team. ■ Hr’g Tr. p. 75. The police executed the search warrant at approximately 12:40 p.m. on May 14, 2008. Hr’g Tr. p. 84. Upon the arrival of law enforcement at 217 Sarah Lane, Ball was delayed exiting the vehicle in which he was riding, and by the time he had reached the front door of the residence, other officers had entered the residence leaving the door open. Hr’g Tr. p. 76.

As Ball entered the residence, he noticed LaWanda and Regina Ragland were in the front room of the house. Hr’g Tr. p. 78. Ball reviewed the search warrant with LaWanda Ragland. Hr’g Tr. pp. 149, 156-57. As he was explaining the search warrant to LaWanda Ragland, she told him that the rental company had already been to the house, approximately five minutes before law enforcement arrived. Hr’g Tr. pp. 86-87,149-50.

While Ball was in the front room of the residence, officers called for Mark Davis who eventually emerged from a back bedroom. After Davis entered the front room, law enforcement searched the back bedroom. Ball subsequently noticed that a washer and dryer appeared to have been recently removed from the kitchen area of the house. Hr’g Tr. p. 79. He also noticed that the back door to the house was open and he saw a truck with a refrigerator on it. About that time officers alerted Ball to the back bedroom. Hr’g Tr. p. 77.

The officers searching the back bedroom located a television beside the bed covered by a blanket, which later turned out to belong to Crusader. Hr’g Tr. pp. 80, 86. The officers also located a second television, along with a PlayStation 3, a computer and a scanner in the bedroom. Hr’g Tr. p. 80. Located on the inside bed of the scanner was a piece of paper containing a signature of someone other than either Defendant. Hr’g Tr. pp. 80-81. The officers also found blank checks and checks containing writing on the bed. Hr’g Tr. p. 81. Credit cards with other persons’ names, checks and prepaid cards were found in an open Shoe Show shopping bag on the bed. Hr’g Tr. pp. 81, 147, 148. On a chair in the bedroom the police found a laundry basket containing papers piled to the top of the basket. Hr’g Tr. p. 81. Upon closer inspection, these documents were discovered to be mail, people’s identities, social security numbers and credit cards. Hr’g Tr. p. 81. The mail contained the names of persons other than Defendants. Hr’g Tr. pp. 93, 145. In the closet police found a filing cabinet containing documents, folders and notebooks containing people’s identities. Hr’g Tr. p. 82. A computer was found in the bedroom along with mail addressed to both Defendants. Hr’g Tr. p. 82. A briefcase was discovered in the hallway. Hr’g Tr. p. 84. After Davis provided his consent to search the briefcase, officers opened the briefcase and discovered tax records containing the names of other individuals. Hr’g Tr. pp. 84-85. Finally, in the back of the closet, officers discovered a .22 caliber rifle and a box of 9mm ammunition. Hr’g Tr. pp. 82-83. Upon discovery of the firearm and ammunition, Ball contacted the police department and after learning that Davis had a prior felony conviction, Ball arrested Davis at the scene. Hr’g Tr. pp. 82-83.

In the course of the search of 217 Sarah Lane, the television belonging to Crusader was removed and placed on the front porch. Hr’g Tr. pp. 86, 124. Someone from the police department contacted Harrell regarding the television, and Harrell subsequently returned to 217 Sarah Lane and retrieved it while the police were still at the residence. Hr’g Tr. p. 124.

Ball interviewed Davis at the police station, advising him in advance of his Miranda rights. Hr’g Tr. p. 89. Davis agreed to speak to officers and indicated that some of the businesses identified in the documents seized during the search were his former businesses or those of Robert Hicks or other persons. Hr’g Tr. pp. 90-91. Davis also stated that the visa credit cards were prepaid cards and that the checks were payroll checks associated with his businesses. Hr’g Tr. pp. 91-92. Davis stated further that Robert Hicks had moved the washer and dryer to 217 Sarah Lane one month earlier, after having been kicked out of the house in which he was residing by his uncle. Hr’g Tr. p. 91.

Ball did not know that prior to the execution of the search warrant the washer and dryer belonging to Crusader had been removed from the residence. Hr’g Tr. p. 94. Ball testified further that based on the information provided by Harrell, he believed that the crimes of possessing stolen goods and obtaining property by false pretenses had been committed. Hr’g Tr. p. 99. According to Ball, the evidence of obtaining property by false pretenses consisted of the misrepresentations of fact made by Hicks and contained in the rental application, whereas the evidence of possession of stolen goods was based on Harrell’s statements regarding the property he saw in the residence. Hr’g Tr. pp. 99, 109, 112-13. According to Ball, Harrell appeared to be a reliable source of information because Harrell provided law enforcement his name, birth date and place of business. Hr’g Tr. p. 100; Moreover, Harrell had been involved in the rental business and appeared to be an “expert” in his field. Hr’g Tr. pp. 100, 112, 114, 142. Harrell told Ball further that he had identified the serial numbers of the Crusader washer and dryer and that he thought it was uncommon that there would be other rented televisions and gaming devices in the residence. Hr’g Tr. pp. 100-101. However, Harrell did not tell Ball that he had identified the property in the residence as being other rental property, nor did Ball have independent information that any of the other property was either rented or stolen. Hr’g Tr. p. 101.

Ball testified further that on Hicks’ rental application, Hicks had identified La-Wanda Ragland as a personal reference indicating her address as being on 217 Sarah Lane, along with a telephone number. Ball did not contact the references on the application because Harrell had indicated that he had attempted to verify information in the application and received conflicting information. Hr’g Tr. pp. 105-06. Ball did not attempt to follow up with the Vance County Sheriffs office prior to the search. Hr’g Tr. p. 98. Rather, based on Harrell being in the rental business, having tracked down property previously and having conducted an investigation in which he had received conflicting information about a renter who had moved rented property, Ball considered Harrell to be reliable. Hr’g Tr. pp. 112, 142. Harrell did not tell Ball prior to the search whether he had called LaWanda Ragland. Hr’g Tr. pp. 105,112.

In drafting the search warrant, Ball relied on the information Harrell provided him and notes Ball made of his interview with Harrell. Hr’g Tr. pp. 119, 123-24, 133-34. Ball was suspicious since Harrell was unable to corroborate the rental application information through his own investigation. Hr’g Tr. p. 106. Based on his training and experience, his review of his notes and the information provided by Harrell, including the fact that several people were listed on the rental application, Ball surmised that where one individual is involved in identity theft or obtaining property by false pretenses, there are usually others. Hr’g Tr. pp. 107-08. According to Ball, the police were seeking any evidence of fraudulent activity based on Harrell’s investigation, including Crusader’s property and other property including fraudulent documents. Hr’g Tr, pp. 100,133.

The police seized 369 items as part of their search of 217 Sarah Lane. Hr’g Tr. pp. 60; Gov’t Hr’g Exs. 1-23, 33-34. The items seized included allegedly-stolen or fraudulent mail, debit cards, checkbooks, a printer, computers, financial documentation and other documentation, a rifle and ammunition. Hr’g Tr. pp. 84, 144; Gov’t Hr’g Exs. 1-23, 33. One of the items listed in the inventory of items seized is a television belonging to Crusader. Hr’g Tr. pp. 125, 143; Gov’t Hr’g Ex. 33. ' Other than Crusader’s television, no other rental or reportedly-stolen property was seized. Hr’g Tr. p. 147. The search warrant inventory, signed and verified by Ball, states that law enforcement would “hold the seized property subject to court order.” Hr’g Tr. p. 126; Gov’t’s Ex. 34. However, Ball admits returning the television to Harrell without a court order. Hr’g Tr. pp. 126-27.

Testimony of Lee Harrell

Harrell was the manager at Crusader during the events in question. In February 2008, Robert Hicks rented a washer, dryer and television from Crusader. • Hr’g Tr. pp. 174-75. As part of the rental, Hicks completed an application requiring him to provide information regarding his residence, employment and the names of several references. Hr’g Tr. p. 174-76. The items rented by Hicks were delivered to 2073 Julia Avenue, his reported residence. Hr’g Tr. p. 175. The rental agreement provided that the washer, dryer and televisions were not permitted to be removed from the residence without prior permission from Crusader. Hr’g Tr. p. 175. Hicks stopped paying rent on the items in or about March 2008, whereupon Crusader began to investigate the whereabouts of its property. Hr’g Tr. p. 176. A representative from Crusader attempted to locate Hicks’ employer from the information provided on the application but instead found only a vacant lot. Hr’g Tr. p. 176. An account manager from Crusader went to Hicks’ residence to retrieve the property but found the property missing. Hr’g Tr. pp. 176-77. Around April 2008, Crusader filed a civil complaint in small claims court against Hicks for failing to return rental property. Hr’g Tr. pp. 178-79.

About this time, Harrell began his own investigation -by attempting to contact the references listed on Hicks’ rental application. Hr’g Tr. pp. 179-80. Harrell spoke with Regina Ragland and explained to her that someone had told him that she could contact LaWanda Ragland, whom Harrell understood had possession of Crusader’s property. Hr’g Tr. p. 180. Regina Rag-land told Harrell that she would have La-Wanda Ragland return his call. Hr’g Tr. p. 180. Harrell also testified that he had received a tip from a Crusader customer that the washer and dryer were located at 217 Sarah Lane. Hr’g Tr. pp. 209-10.

LaWanda Ragland subsequently called Harrell to tell him the washer and dryer belonging to Crusader were located at 217 Sarah Lane.and that she would call him the following morning to tell him when he could come get them. Hr’g Tr. pp. 181-82. LaWanda Ragland told Harrell further that an African-American man would be at the house to allow him to enter the residence. Hr’g Tr. p. 182.

After Harrell’s conversation with La-Wanda, two HPD officers visited the Crusader office. Hr’g Tr. p. 182. Harrell, however, had not called the HPD. Hr’g Tr. p. 182. The police asked for information concerning Robert Hicks. Hr’g Tr. p. 183. Harrell told the officers of his conversation with LaWanda Ragland and that she would call the next day to let him know that he could pick up Crusader’s property. Hr’g Tr. pp. 183, 199. Harrell did not ask the officers for any assistance in the return of Crusader’s property and told them that he was going to 217 Sarah Lane to retrieve the property himself. Hr’g Tr. pp. 183, 192-93, 200. The police told Harrell not to go to 217 Sarah Lane because the police were planning to. raid the house. Hr’g Tr. pp. 190, 200.

The following morning, LaWanda Rag-land called Harrell and told him that he could retrieve the washer and dryer from 217 Sarah Lane. Hr’g Tr. p. 183. Harrell testified that he then went to 217 Sarah Lane with a Vance County Sheriffs Deputy, whose name he could not recall, and Calvin, a Crusader account manager. Hr’g Tr. pp. 183-84, 200, 216-17, 229-30.

Harrell arrived at 217 Sarah Lane and after knocking on the door, was allowed to enter the residence by an African-American male. Hr’g Tr. p. 184. The African-American male showed Harrell and the Vance County Sheriffs Deputy where the washer and dryer were located and Harrell verified them as Crusader property. Hr’g Tr. pp. 184-85. According to Harrell, he and the deputy then looked around the residence to see if any other Crusader merchandise was in the home. Hr’g Tr. pp. 184-85, 216. Harrell testified that out of professional courtesy he looked to see if property from other rental agencies was located in the residence. Hr’g Tr. pp. 184, 188-90. Specifically, he looked at the back of televisions to verify serial numbers and ownership tags or other verifying markings. Hr’g Tr. pp. 184, 233. Harrell and the deputy entered every room as they searched the house, under beds and in the attic. Hr’g Tr. pp. 185-86. While Harrell saw eight to nine televisions in the house, he did not identify any televisions belonging to Crusader. Hr’g Tr. pp. 218-19. Harrell does not recall seeing any computers, scanners, gaming systems, checks, social security or other financial documents or any fraudulent documents during his search of the house. Hr’g Tr. pp. 212-14. Harrell then took possession of the washer and dryer and returned them to the store between approximately 10:30 a.m. and 11 a.m., when the unit was cleaned and placed back on'the rental floor. Hr’g Tr. pp. 186-87. Harrell believes he was at 217 Sarah Lane for 30-45 minutes. Hr’g Tr. p. 183.

After Harrell had retrieved the washer and dryer and returned to the store, officers from the HPD arrived at Crusader. Hr’g Tr. p. 187. Harrell told the officers that he had been to 217 Sarah Lane and had retrieved the washer and dryer, but that the televisions belonging to Crusader were not in the residence. Hr’g Tr. pp. 186-87, 190, 201. He told the police there were a few other televisions in the house but did not tell them a specific number of televisions. Hr’g Tr. p. 188. Harrell did not tell the police he saw any computers or gaming systems in the house. Hr’g Tr. p. 188. Harrell never told the HPD there was stolen property inside 217 Sarah Lane or that he believed there to be fraudulent documents inside as well. Hr’g Tr. pp. 195, 198, 231-32. Harrell never told the police he saw nine big screen televisions, four Xboxes, or two computers, nor did he tell the police he believed the house contained stolen merchandise. -Hr’g Tr. p. 198.

Later that day Harrell received a call from the HPD to pick up his television at 217 Sarah Lane. Hr’g Tr. p. 201. Harrell drove to Sarah Lane later that afternoon to pick up the television around the time the police were searching the house. Hr’g Tr. p. 191. When Harrell arrived and stepped out of his car, an officer whom Harrell believes to be Ball grabbed his arm and advised him he could be charged with obstruction of justice. Hr’g Tr. p. 191. Harrell retrieved the television, placed it in the back of the ■ truck and returned to Crusader. Hr’g Tr. p. 192.

Harrell had previously gone to 217 Sarah Lane on one other occasion with the account manager from Crusader, but no one was home at the time. 'Hr’g Tr. p. 198. Finally, Harrell said that while working for Cr