USA v. Griffien

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
) 	RECOMENDATION
v. 	)
) 	Case No. 3:23-cr-226
Taron Dejuan Griffien, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
Defendant Taron Dejuan Griffien moves to suppress evidence derived from a GPS tracking
warrant and requests a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). Docs. 76; 78.
Griffien also moves for dismissal of the indictment. Doc. 78. United States Magistrate Judge Alice
R. Senechal held an evidentiary hearing on June 4, 2025. Doc. 82. The parties filed pre and post-
hearing briefs. Docs. 76; 80; 87; 92. On October 31, 2025, Judge Alice R. Senechal filed a Report
and Recommendation on the motions. Doc. 107. She recommends denying all of the motions. Id.
Her report states:
During the June 4 evidentiary hearing . . . [Drug Task Force Officer] Gossen
testified and Griffien had a full opportunity to cross-examine him. Because the
parties presented their evidence . . . and neither party suggests any additional
information 	would 	be 	elicited 	at 	a 	second 	evidentiary 	hearing, 	this 	court
recommends the district judge find the motion for a Franks hearing moot.
Concerning the alleged Franks violation, in this court’s opinion, Griffien has shown
[Drug Task Force Officer] Gossen omitted facts from a declaration in reckless
disregard of whether the omitted facts made his declaration misleading. But if
[Drug Task Force Officer] Gossen had included the omitted information in his
declaration, the reviewing judge may still have found probable cause supported
issuance of the warrant. For that reason, this court recommends the district judge
deny Griffien’s motion to suppress and his motion to dismiss.
Id. at 2-3. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due on November 24, 2025. Doc.
109. Griffien filed an objection. Doc. 110.
Case 3:23-cr-00226-PDW Document 113 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 5

2
The Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636.
“However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation
to which no objections are addressed.” United States v. Ceron, No. 2:15-CR-55, 2019 WL
3161785, at *1 (D.N.D. July 15, 2019) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)).
Griffien objects to Judge Senechal’s finding that, even if Officer Gossen had included the
omitted information in his declaration, the reviewing judge may still have found probable cause to
issue the warrant. Doc. 110 at 9. He alleges Officer Gossen omitted the following information in
the declaration:
(1) CI-1 sold 94 M30 fentanyl pills approximately 12 days prior to the alleged
controlled buy between CI-1 and Mr. Griffien; that CI-1 was a known drug dealer
and drug dealer of the same alleged quality as Mr. Griffien; (2) that CI-1 lied to
TFO Gossen upon their first interaction by unequivocally telling TFO Gossen that
there would be no drugs found in CI-1’s residence when, in fact, drugs were found
in this residence; (3) that TFO Gossen did not develop CI-1 into a confidential
information between May 10th and May 17th as TFO Gossen did not engage in any
vetting of CI-1’s claims, did not build a rapport with CI-1, or trained CI-1 on the
specific informant protocols—rather, CI-1 only became a confidential informant
mere moments before the May 15th alleged controlled buy; (4) that CI-1 never told
TFO Gossen that he ever actually purchased fentanyl from Mr. Griffien before this
alleged transaction; (5) that the audio recording of this alleged transaction did not
demonstrate that a drug transaction, in fact, occurred; (6) that CI-1 deviated from
the agreed-upon debriefing location and entered into CI-1’s apartment complex and
headed in the direction of his apartment; (7) that CI-1 remained in his apartment
complex for 2 minutes and 30 seconds prior to exiting the apartment and proceeding
to the debriefing location; (8) that CI-1 returned with only 19, not the agreed upon
20, M-30 fentanyl pills; (9) that CI-1 told TFO Gossen that his cell phone was dead
and that is why CI-1 went into his apartment when this was fact was patently untrue;
(10) that CI-1 explained that he always went back into his apartment after a buy
from Mr. Griffien, yet CI-1 had never purchased M-30 pills previously from Mr.
Griffien; and (11) that TFO Gossen did not conduct any follow up on the veracity
of these assertions like searching CI-1’s apartment, or even looking through the
apartment complex—instead, TFO Gossen blindly-believed CI-1 . . . .
Case 3:23-cr-00226-PDW Document 113 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 5

3
Id. at 11. Griffien argues that Judge Senechal’s application of the Franks probable cause standard
is “erroneous and misguided.” Id. at 9. Specifically, “[had Officer] Gossen provided all these
omitted facts, the presiding judge would not have found probable cause because there is no actual
corroborative, objective, reliable evidence that Mr. Griffien, in fact, committed a crime.” Id. at 13
(emphasis in original).
Griffien points to United States v. Lauria1 as instructive. 70 4th 106 (2d Cir. 2023). The
defendant in Lauria was convicted of robbery and brandishing a firearm. Id. at 111. Before trial,
the defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing evidence obtained via a search warrant should
be excluded because the supporting affidavit contained material misstatements. Id. at 116. The
misstatements included citing incorrect dates of the crimes, attributing phone numbers to the
wrong people, and stating that coconspirators communicated with each other around the time of
the crime when there was no evidence of that. Id. at 116-18. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
agreed and found removing the misstatements produced an affidavit that did not contain probable
cause to issue the warrant. Id. at 126-31.
Griffien’s case is distinguishable from Lauria. Lauria dealt with robbery and brandishing a
firearm as opposed to controlled substances and firearm possession charges. Id. at 111. The issues
in Lauria did not concern a controlled buy or affidavit omissions focused on a confidential
informant. Further, Lauria’s affidavit errors were misstatements rather than omissions. Id. at 125.
The misstatements in Lauria are also distinguishable from the kinds of omissions alleged here.
Lauria’s incorrect dates, phone numbers, and erroneous description of evidence showing co-
conspirator communication do not provide the Court with sufficient direction for Griffien’s case.
1 Griffien cites United States v. Molina in his brief. Doc. 110 at 13. A Westlaw search reveals this
case is actually entitled United States v. Lauria. 70 F.4th 106 (2d Cir. 2023).
Case 3:23-cr-00226-PDW Document 113 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Instead, Judge Senechal’s illustration of United States v. Leonard provides better guidance.
17 F.4th 218 (1st Cir. 2021). The Leonard defendant was indicted for controlled substances and
firearm possession charges. Id. at 222. Like here, the case developed from a controlled drug buy
using a confidential informant. Id. Details from the controlled buy were later included in a search
warrant affidavit. Id. The Leonard defendant’s motion to suppress focused on affidavit omissions
similar to those alleged here. One omission concerned background noise that prevented a recording
of the controlled drug purchase. Id. at 223. Another, similar to Griffien’s case, involved the
confidential informant’s failure to meet with officers after the controlled buy. Id. More, the
confidential informant in Leonard interacted with an unidentified person before giving the drugs
to officers, which raised “at least a speculative possibility that someone other than [the defendant]
had been the source of the drugs the CI turned over to police.” Id. at 227. The First Circuit Court
of Appeals found that including the omissions did not disturb the probable cause finding because
other information in the affidavit provided adequate support. Id. Although Griffien’s case presents
several distinguishable—and less favorable—facts from those in Leonard, the Court cannot say
that including the alleged omissions “would have made it impossible to find probable cause.”
United States v. Stropes, 387 F.3d 766, 771 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). After reviewing the
facts and the law, the Court agrees with Judge Senechal’s determination that, even if Officer
Gossen had included the omitted information in his declaration, the reviewing judge may still have
found probable cause for the warrant.
The 	Court 	has 	spent 	considerable 	time 	reviewing 	the 	motion, 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation, 	Griffien’s 	objection, 	and 	the 	record 	as 	a 	whole. 	The 	Report 	and
Recommendation is legally sound and persuasive. So, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 107) in its entirety. Griffien’s motion to suppress (Doc. 76) is DENIED.
Case 3:23-cr-00226-PDW Document 113 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Griffien’s motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 78) is also DENIED. Griffien’s motion for a
Franks hearing (Doc. 78) is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 5th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Peter D. Welte
Peter D. Welte, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:23-cr-00226-PDW Document 113 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 5