Evidence; Denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized during a canine search; Whether defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to present extrinsic evidence challenging a canine search; Whether Florida v Harris creates an exception to the “four corners” rule as it applied to warrant affidavits; Franks v Delaware; Whether the search was supported by probable cause

The court held that the district court properly denied defendant-McCarley-Connin’s motion for a hearing to present extrinsic evidence challenging a canine search under Harris because Harris only applies to “warrantless searches.” Challenges to an approved warrant affidavit require a preliminary showing under Franks. McCarley-Connin was charged with drug conspiracy after an investigation determined he was connected to two packages containing drugs sent through the mail. The drugs were discovered after a canine sniff search. He argued that under Harris, the evidence should be suppressed because the district court denied his motion for an evidentiary hearing with extrinsic evidence to challenge the reliability of the canine sniff, which supplied the “probable cause” for the search of the packages. He pled guilty, reserving his right to challenge the search. McCarley-Connin first challenged the hearing denial. The court agreed with the government that Harris does not extend to searches made under a warrant. A court considers the warrant’s affidavit to determine whether there is probable cause. Considering information outside the affidavit “would eviscerate the ‘essential purpose of the Fourth Amendment.’” A defendant may challenge the truthfulness of the affidavit with a Franks hearing, but “after a warrant affidavit has been reviewed and approved by a neutral and detached magistrate, a defendant is entitled to a hearing based on evidence outside the four corners of the affidavit only if he makes the preliminary showing under Franks.” In sum, “Harris and Franks govern different factual situations: Harris after a warrantless search, Franks after a warrant affidavit.” McCarley-Connin also argued that the affidavit did not support probable cause. However, the district court properly limited its review to the affidavit’s four corners, and because defendant failed to offer any other reason for its alleged insufficiency, the court affirmed probable cause to search both packages.