The accused sought leave, within a Garofoli application, to cross-examine the police affiant on three ITOs supporting a production order and two search warrants arising from an online child exploitation investigation involving foreign law enforcement assistance.
The court reviewed the narrow Garofoli threshold and held that cross-examination is permitted only where there is a reasonable likelihood it will elicit evidence tending to discredit a material precondition to the authorization or show significant police misconduct.
The proposed questioning about the credibility of American investigators, the legality of U.S. summons or subpoena procedures, the form of an undercover officer’s statement, and the affiant’s understanding of push tokens, Apple data, and IP addresses was found to be speculative, directed to inferences available on the record, or irrelevant to the affiant’s honest and reasonable belief.
The court also rejected the submission that the leave threshold should be relaxed in cases not involving confidential informants.
Leave to cross-examine was denied.
