Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03260/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03260-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Edward White
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Argued October 5, 2016 

Decided December 21, 2016 

Before 

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge 

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

No. 15-3260 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

EDWARD WHITE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 12 CR 478 

Joan Humphrey Lefkow 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Edward White pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon and possessing a 

controlled substance with intent to distribute. Before entering that plea, White had 

moved to suppress the evidence seized from his home—a firearm and drugs. The 

district court held a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and denied 

the motion, concluding that White failed to show that the police officer intentionally or 

recklessly omitted material information about the informant’s criminal history from the 

warrant application. The court then sentenced White to 60 months’ imprisonment. On 

appeal he challenges the denial of the motion to suppress, and we affirm the judgment. 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 15-3260 Document: 27 Filed: 12/21/2016 Pages: 4
No. 15-3260 Page 2 

White was living on Chicago’s southwest side when an acquaintance seeking 

leniency on a pending charge tipped off police that White kept a handgun in his home. 

(White was not supposed to have a handgun, having been convicted in 1998 of two 

felonies.) 

 

In an affidavit submitted with a search-warrant application, Chicago Police 

Officer Michael O’Connor related that an informant—referred to as “J. Doe” and 

described simply as “a citizen of Chicago”—told him that he had visited White’s home 

on occasion over the past 2 months, the last time within 10 days, and there saw White 

multiple times retrieve a handgun from a closet in the basement. The informant knew 

that the home was White’s because each time he visited he saw White’s clothing and 

personal belongings and White was the one who answered the door. To corroborate the 

tip, O’Connor drove to the house with the informant, who confirmed that this was the 

spot where he saw White with the gun. When O’Connor showed him White’s picture, 

the informant verified that this was the man who owned the weapon. 

O’Connor and Doe appeared before a state judge, and O’Connor presented the 

warrant application supported by an affidavit that he and Doe both signed. The judge 

issued the warrant, and in the resulting search of the home police found a 9-millimeter 

pistol and ammunition, as well as bags of marijuana and cocaine. As a result, White was 

charged with unlawfully possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(1), and possessing marijuana and cocaine with the intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1). 

On White’s motion to suppress, the district court held a hearing under Franks v. 

Delaware to determine whether O’Connor had omitted material information from the 

warrant affidavit “knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the 

truth.” 438 U.S. at 155–56. Omitted from the affidavit was any reference to the 

informant’s arrest the day before the warrant was sought or the likelihood that the tip 

was motivated by his desire for leniency. At the hearing, the government introduced 

evidence of the informant’s criminal history (convictions for battery and aggravated 

vehicular hijacking and numerous arrests), which also had not been mentioned in the 

warrant affidavit. 

The state judge who issued the warrant, Cook County Circuit Judge Gloria 

Chevere, testified at the Franks hearing about her general practices for determining 

whether probable cause exists for a warrant (she did not specifically recall this warrant). 

She first makes sure that the prosecutor’s office has approved the warrant application; 

then asks to see a file folder containing, among other things, the informant’s criminal 

Case: 15-3260 Document: 27 Filed: 12/21/2016 Pages: 4
No. 15-3260 Page 3 

history; and, after reviewing those documents, asks the informant to state his or her true 

name, swear to the truth of the affidavit, and answer a few questions intended to assess 

credibility. She added that she does not consider the informant’s reasons for offering 

information to police to have much relevance to probable cause because informants 

usually are seeking some benefit for their cooperation. 

O’Connor also testified at the hearing about the meeting with Judge Chevere. He 

said that he brought information about the informant’s criminal history, along with 

pictures of White and the targeted residence, but could not remember if the judge 

looked at the information. He recalled that he brought the informant to the meeting and 

that Judge Chevere asked the informant for his real name and placed him under oath. 

The district court denied the motion to suppress. In reaching its decision, the 

court applied a two-part test under Franks: whether the officer omitted information 

intentionally or recklessly, and if so, whether that information was material to probable 

cause. See 438 U.S. at 155–56. The court concluded that White failed to prove the first 

part of the test because no inference could be drawn that O’Connor was trying to 

mislead Judge Chevere. The court highlighted three reasons: First, the officer “handed” 

to the judge a file folder containing Doe’s criminal history, including information about 

his arrest the previous day; second, he ensured that Doe appeared before the judge, 

who had the opportunity to ask any question that she wished; and third, he sought and 

obtained approval from the prosecutor’s office before seeking the warrant. 

 

White eventually pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 

18 U.S.C. § 922(g), and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 

but reserved the right to appeal the denial. The court sentenced him to 60 months for 

each count, to run concurrently. 

 

On appeal White challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. He maintains 

that he did prove the first part of the Franks inquiry—that O’Connor deliberately or 

recklessly omitted information regarding the informant’s criminal history and motive 

for cooperating. See 438 U.S. at 155–56; United States v. Gregory, 795 F.3d 735, 743 (7th 

Cir. 2015). White contests the district court’s reasons for concluding that O’Connor did 

not intend to mislead Judge Chevere. O’Connor’s police training, White adds, permits 

the inference that he knew of the judge’s need for the omitted information to make an 

informed decision. 

Regarding the court’s first reason—that O’Connor brought a file folder with the 

omitted information to the judge—White contends that the record shows only that 

Case: 15-3260 Document: 27 Filed: 12/21/2016 Pages: 4
No. 15-3260 Page 4 

O’Connor brought along the informant’s rap sheet, not that he actually presented the 

information to the judge. But the district court credited both O’Connor’s testimony that 

he brought the arrest report to the meeting and Judge Chevere’s testimony that her 

general practice was to ask to see a file folder containing the informant’s criminal 

history. From this testimony the district court could reasonably infer that the judge 

followed her general practice and that O’Connor actually “handed” the report to the 

judge, supporting the conclusion that the officer did not intend to omit material 

information. 

As for the second reason—that O’Connor presented Doe to the judge for 

questioning—White argues that this did not belie O’Connor’s intent to mislead because 

the judge did not ask Doe enough questions to evaluate his credibility. But the 

substance of this questioning is irrelevant to O’Connor’s aim in securing Doe’s 

testimony. The decision to present Doe “provided the issuing judge with an 

opportunity to learn more about [Doe’s] status [as a recent arrestee] and credibility,” 

United States v. Williams, 718 F.3d 644, 653 (7th Cir. 2013), and hardly suggests deception 

on O’Connor’s part. 

White attacks the district court’s third reason by contending that O’Connor’s 

submission of the affidavit to the state prosecutor’s office for review does not repudiate 

O’Connor’s intent to mislead. Indeed, the prosecutor’s office likely did not know about 

the missing information, let alone approve of its omission. This third reason strikes us 

as marginal, but the court’s other two reasons for denying the motion sufficiently 

support its finding that O’Connor’s omissions did not reflect any intent to mislead the 

judge. 

 

White also argues for the first time that the district court erred in denying his 

suppression motion because, even apart from any Franks violation, the absence of 

probable cause to justify the search warrant was clear on the face of the warrant 

affidavit. But as the government points out, we may not consider this argument because 

White neither raised it in the district court nor presented good cause for failing to do so. 

See FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(c)(3); United States v. Daniels, 803 F.3d 335, 351–52 (7th Cir. 2015); 

United States v. Figueroa, 622 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Murdock, 

491 F.3d 694, 698–99 (7th Cir. 2007). In any event, if we were to review this argument for 

plain error, the affidavit did not lack probable cause; Doe’s detailed, first-hand 

observations of recent events provided its factual basis, O’Connor took steps to 

corroborate that information, and Doe appeared before the issuing judge. 

See United States v. Sutton, 742 F.3d 770, 773 (7th Cir. 2014). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-3260 Document: 27 Filed: 12/21/2016 Pages: 4