Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02397/USCOURTS-ca7-15-02397-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lance Slizewski
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15‐2397

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

LANCE SLIZEWSKI,

Defendant‐Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 14‐cr‐87 — James D. Peterson, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED DECEMBER 16, 2015 — DECIDED JANUARY 5, 2016

____________________

Before MANION, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

KANNE, Circuit Judge. Lance Slizewski pleaded guilty to

possessing a firearm as a felon after police in Madison, Wis‐

consin, executed a warrant to search his rental car and found

a gun in the trunk. Slizewski moved to suppress the gun. He

argued that a detective misrepresented and omitted critical

information in his search‐warrant affidavit, necessitating a

Franks hearing to determine the search’s validity. The district

court denied the motion, and Slizewski pleaded guilty but

Case: 15-2397 Document: 16 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pages: 7
2 No. 15‐2397

reserved his right to challenge the denial of his motion. Be‐

cause the district court permissibly ruled that any misstate‐

ments or omissions were unintentional or immaterial, we

affirm the district court’s judgment.

I.   BACKGROUND

Wisconsin police officers arrested Slizewski in July 2014

as they investigated a string of armed robberies. Detective

Joel Peterson prepared an affidavit for a warrant to search

Slizewski’s car. In the affidavit, Peterson described four re‐

cent robberies. The first occurred at a pizza restaurant in

April. A second restaurant was robbed three days later. Two

men, one wearing a St. Louis Cardinals cap, were captured

on surveillance photos at that restaurant before it was

robbed. According to a witness, a robbery suspect fled that

scene in a black sedan “similar” to “a Chevrolet Malibu.”

The next robbery was a few days later. According to Peter‐

son, two men—one a black male and one a “lighter‐skinned

black male or perhaps mixed race”—robbed a sports bar. Pe‐

terson said that a surveillance video shows a black four‐door

sedan passing the bar four times shortly before the robbery.

Finally, Peterson said that a man, identified as James Sexton,

robbed a convenience store a week later and fled in a red

Ford Focus. The driver of the Ford Focus, who knew Sexton,

looked at photos from surveillance video of the previous

robberies. He pointed out that Sexton wore the same gray

basketball shoes (which he referred to as “Jordans”) during

the first and last robberies.

Peterson’s affidavit listed several facts that connected

Slizewski and his car to the robberies. First, Sexton had

Slizewski’s contact information in his phone and called

Slizewski from jail to tell him to change his number. Second,

Case: 15-2397 Document: 16 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pages: 7
No. 15‐2397 3

Slizewski drove to meet his probation officer in a car that re‐

sembles cars seen in two of the robberies. Third, after police

arrested Slizewski for a probation violation, they observed in

plain view of the inside of his impounded car two clothing

items associated with the crimes: a red St. Louis Cardinals

baseball cap and “a pair of gray and white basketball shoes.”

Fourth, Slizewski “appears to possibly be mixed race accord‐

ing to his Dane County Jail booking photo.” Finally, when

Slizewski called his girlfriend from jail, he “repeatedly” told

her to “find where his car is, get it back, and get ‘the stuff’

out of it” or his “life is over.”

A state judge concluded that probable cause existed to

search Slizewski’s rental car and granted the search warrant.

Officers found a firearm in the trunk, which Slizewski is

prohibited from possessing as a result of a previous felony

conviction.  

Slizewski moved to suppress the firearm. He argued that

Peterson had intentionally or recklessly misstated or omitted

five points. (1) Slizewski’s rental car is not identical to the car

in the surveillance video of third robbery; (2) The gray bas‐

ketball shoes in the back of Slizewski’s car were “LeBrons,”

not “Jordans”; (3) No suspect wore a St. Louis Cardinals hat

during any robbery; (4) Slizewski does not appear mixed‐

race in his booking photo, which Peterson omitted from his

affidavit; and (5) Slizewski faced a potential parole revoca‐

tion; had Peterson’s affidavit included that fact, it would

have negated an inference that Slizewski thought his life was

over because of the armed robberies. Slizewski asked for a

Franks hearing, see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), to

determine whether, in light of these problems, the search

was unlawful.

Case: 15-2397 Document: 16 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pages: 7
4 No. 15‐2397

A magistrate judge recommended that the district court

deny the motion to suppress and the request for a Franks

hearing. He reasoned that, even if he granted Slizewski’s

contentions, Peterson supplied ample, truthful reasons to

believe that evidence of the armed robberies was in the car.

Namely: Sexton (himself a suspect) kept Slizewski’s contact

information on his phone; Sexton called Slizewski from jail

to warn him to change numbers; gray basketball sneakers in

Slizewski’s car closely matched the description of shoes

identified at two robberies; and a St. Louis Cardinals hat,

seen on a suspect in a surveillance photo taken shortly be‐

fore one robbery, was also in Slizewski’s car. The district

court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation over

Slizewski’s objection.

Slizewski pleaded guilty but reserved his right to appeal

the denial of his motion to suppress, see Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(a)(2). The district court sentenced Slizewski to 180

months’ imprisonment.

II.   ANALYSIS

On appeal, Slizewski challenges the district court’s re‐

fusal to conduct a Franks hearing. He insists that the state

judge would not have found probable cause to search his car

if Peterson had not omitted crucial facts and included mis‐

leading statements. We disagree.

The district court permissibly denied Slizewski’s motion.

The Fourth Amendment requires district courts to hold a

Franks hearing when “the 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,” if that “al‐

Case: 15-2397 Document: 16 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pages: 7
No. 15‐2397 5

legedly false statement is necessary to the finding of proba‐

ble cause.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 155–56; see United States v.

Johnson, 580 F.3d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 2009). Because these ele‐

ments are hard to prove, Franks hearings are rarely required.

See Johnson, 580 F.3d at 670; United States v. Maro, 272 F.3d

817, 822 (7th Cir. 2001). And no hearing was needed here be‐

cause the affidavit contains no intentional or material errors.

We turn first to the baseball cap. Slizewski asserts that

Peterson misled the state judge into thinking that the hat

was worn during a robbery. But, in fact, the affidavit truth‐

fully notes that a surveillance photo captured an image of a

man in a Cardinals hat at the restaurant before the robbery

took place. See Johnson, 580 F.3d at 670 (requiring defendant

to show that “officer submitting the affidavit perjured him‐

self or acted recklessly because he seriously doubted or had

obvious reason to doubt the truth of the allegations”). So

there is no misstatement.

Slizewski next focuses on the shoes. He says that the

shoes in the rental car are “LeBrons,” a gray basketball shoe

that is different from the gray basketball “Jordans” that a

witness said Sexton wore. But no evidence suggests that Pe‐

terson knew that these two types of gray basketball shoes are

branded differently. Instead he argues that Peterson should

have learned the difference. But an affiant’s negligence does

not justify a Franks hearing. See Johnson, 580 F.3d at 671;

see also United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788, 791 (7th Cir.

2000) (describing allegation that “investigators should have

done more work” as insufficient to meet “high standard re‐

quired for convening a Franks hearing”). As the district court

noted, Peterson cannot be expected to be “as attuned to the

various models of Nike basketball shoes as the clerks at Foot

Case: 15-2397 Document: 16 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pages: 7
6 No. 15‐2397

Locker.” And for all Peterson knew, the witness who called

the gray basketball shoes “Jordans” was himself mistaken.

At oral argument Slizewski argued that, since time was not

of the essence, the officer could have easily obtained a still

photo from the camera recording of the first robbery; he then

could have compared the shoes seen on the suspect with the

shoes visible in the backseat of the car and determined

whether the shoes were the same. But Slizewski never put

into the record the still photo of the suspect wearing the gray

basketball shoes, so the district court could not evaluate

whether the photo was useful. Without the photo in the rec‐

ord, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that no

Franks hearing was required.

Slizewski next addresses the cars. He contends that Pe‐

terson misled the state judge by suggesting that Slizewski’s

car resembles cars seen in the two robberies, but omitting

that Slizewski’s is an Impala and the car in the surveillance

video of the third robbery was a Malibu. But those two cars

are similar—both are black, four‐door Chevy sedans with

similar body shapes and taillights. True, they are not identi‐

cal—the license plates hang slightly differently and one car

has five‐spoke wheels while the other has six spokes. But

negligence in not noticing those slight differences does not

justify a Franks hearing. See Johnson, 580 F.3d at 671. In any

event, a witness to the second robbery said that the suspect

used a black sedan “similar” to a Malibu. And as the magis‐

trate judge noted, “the Malibu is the Impala’s little brother.”

Thus Slizewski has not shown that Peterson made an inten‐

tional misstatement about the cars’ similarity.

Finally Slizewski attacks how Peterson described

Slizewski’s call to his girlfriend. He argues that Peterson

Case: 15-2397 Document: 16 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pages: 7
No. 15‐2397 7

omitted telling the state judge about his criminal history;

had he done so, the judge could have inferred that Slizewski

thought his “life was over” because of a potential probation

violation, not because he feared evidence of the robberies

was in his car. But the omission is irrelevant: the state court

judge already knew Slizewski was on a state probation hold,

so the judge was aware of the context for Slizewski’s state‐

ment.

III.   CONCLUSION

Probable cause that the car contained evidence of the

robberies was adequately based on the sworn presence of

the Cardinals cap and basketball shoes in the car, its renter’s

(Slizewski’s) substantial contacts with another suspect in the

robberies, and Slizewski’s incriminating call to the girlfriend.

See Gutierrez v. Kermon, 722 F.3d 1003, 1008 (7th Cir. 2013)

(describing probable cause as “practical, commonsense

standard”); United States v. Hines, 449 F.3d 808, 814 (7th Cir.

2006) (same). Accordingly no Franks hearing was necessary.

Because the district court permissibly denied the Franks

hearing and motion to suppress, we affirm the district

court’s judgment.

Case: 15-2397 Document: 16 Filed: 01/05/2016 Pages: 7