USA v. Davis et al

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND MOTION FOR HEARING
[¶ 1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion to Suppress and Motion for a Franks
Hearing filed by Defendant Davis on February 5, 2026. Doc. No. 154. For the reasons stated below,
Defendant’s Motions are DENIED.
[¶ 2] 	Defendant was indicted in a Superseding Indictment on June 27, 2024, for Conspiracy to
Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Controlled Substances and Possession with Intent
to Distribute Controlled Substances, Aiding and Abetting. Doc. No. 26. Almost exactly one year
ago, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence relating to the search and seizure of the
apartment where he was arrested, his person, and his vehicle. Doc. No. 63. At that time, Defendant
also requested a Franks hearing. Id. After an evidentiary hearing and multiple rounds of briefing,
this Court denied that motion on December 1, 2025. Doc. No. 131. Since that time Defendant has
been deemed competent to proceed pro se. Doc. No. 153.
[¶ 3] 	The Court finds the grounds raised in Defendant’s newest motion are repetitive of the
issues already ruled on in December. Defendant argues again that there was insufficient probable
cause for the warrant because co-Defendant Kuntz’s reliability was not verified and the
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Ceballos Tyrone Davis,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:24-cr-00052
Case 1:24-cr-00052-DMT Document 156 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
information was stale. Doc. No. 154, p. 1. The Court addressed this argument in ¶¶ 24–25 of its
Order. Doc. No. 131. Defendant challenges the authority of a tribal judge to authorize a warrant.
Doc. No. 154, p. 3. The Court addressed this argument in ¶¶ 14–20. Doc. No. 131. Defendant
argues he is entitled to a Franks hearing because the officer omitted information on the warrant’s
affidavit. Doc. No. 154, p. 6. The Court address this argument in ¶¶ 31–35. The Defendant argues
the money found on his person should be suppressed. Doc. No. 154, p. 6. The Court addressed
this in ¶ 29. Doc. No. 131. The Defendant the warrant for the phone is suppressible as derivative
evidence. Doc. No. 154, p. 7. The Court addressed this in ¶¶ 26–27. Doc. No. 131.
[¶ 4] 	For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and Motion for a Franks
Hearing (Doc. No. 154) are DENIED.
[¶ 5] 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED February 13, 2026.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:24-cr-00052-DMT Document 156 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 2