COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

July 7, 2023

Samuel A. Christensen

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and 

RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2022AP1135-CR Cir. Ct. No. 2017CF612

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT IV

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

 V.

RAYMOND R. LEWIS,

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for La Crosse County: 

RAMONA A. GONZALEZ, Judge. Affirmed. 

Before Blanchard, P.J., Fitzpatrick, and Graham, JJ.

Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent 

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3). 

¶1 PER CURIAM. Raymond Lewis appeals a judgment of conviction 

for delivery of cocaine, as a party to a crime. Lewis argues that the circuit court 
No. 2022AP1135-CR

2

should have granted his motion to suppress evidence obtained through execution of 

a search warrant. Specifically, Lewis contends that the search warrant lacked 

probable cause after correcting for deliberate falsehoods and omissions in the 

warrant application. We conclude that, even after correcting for the claimed 

falsehoods and omissions, the warrant was supported by probable cause. We affirm.

Background

¶2 In June 2017, law enforcement sought a warrant to search Lewis’s 

home. In support of the warrant application, a drug investigator with the City of 

La Crosse Police Department testified in a telephone call with the circuit court as 

follows. The investigator made contact with a confidential informant (“CI”), who 

advised the investigator that he could purchase cocaine and methamphetamine from 

Lewis. The investigator knew the CI to provide truthful information in the past 

when the investigator worked with the CI previously. 

¶3 The investigator met with the CI at the police station and recorded a 

phone call between the CI and Lewis, during which they made plans to meet on the 

south side of La Crosse. The investigator searched the CI and did not locate any 

contraband, and the investigator provided the CI with $300 police recorded “buy 

money” and an audio/video recording device. The investigator then drove the CI to 

the south side of La Crosse. Other surveillance investigators witnessed the CI 

approach the residence at the “target location.” The investigator heard the CI make 

contact with Lewis at that location on the recording device the investigator had 

provided him. About 25 minutes later, the CI left the location and made contact 

with the investigator. The CI turned over three small baggies of methamphetamine 
No. 2022AP1135-CR

3

and two small baggies of cocaine.1 The investigator transported the CI to the police 

station where the investigator searched the CI and discovered another small baggie 

of methamphetamine. 

¶4 The investigator viewed the video recording of the controlled buy and 

determined that the CI clearly received the drugs from Lewis as shown on the 

recording. The investigator also observed that a ten-year-old child and additional 

drugs were present in the residence. 

¶5 The CI informed the investigator that the CI had observed Lewis with 

a handgun the previous week. The investigator also knew that Lewis was “out on 

parole” based on convictions for possession with intent to deliver cocaine and 

battery to a police officer that resulted from a prior execution of a search warrant. 

The circuit court found probable cause and issued a warrant to search Lewis’s 

residence. The court also authorized a no-knock execution of the search warrant, 

citing the testimony as to Lewis’s possession of a firearm, his prior conviction, that 

he was on supervision, and that a child was present in the residence. 

¶6 Police executed the search warrant at Lewis’s residence with a noknock entry and recovered a handgun, methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and 

scales. Based on the search results, the State charged Lewis with multiple criminal 

offenses. 

¶7 Lewis moved to suppress the evidence obtained through the execution 

of the search warrant. He argued that the testifying investigator deliberately omitted 

material facts and misrepresented other material facts when he testified in support

 

1

 The investigator described the baggies as “bindles,” “corner baggies,” or “small gem 

baggies.” 
No. 2022AP1135-CR

4

of the warrant application. Lewis argued that, once those errors are corrected, the 

investigator and the CI lack any reliability, and the information they provided could 

not establish probable cause. 

¶8 On May 6, 2021, the circuit court held a suppression hearing. At the 

hearing, the investigator who testified in support of the warrant provided the 

following further testimony related to the controlled buy. The investigator’s first 

contact with the CI was in connection with this case, when he was contacted by 

representatives of another police department who advised him that the CI would be 

able to conduct a controlled buy from Lewis. The representatives of the other

department informed the investigator that the other department had worked with the 

informant and that he was reliable. The other department’s representativesinformed 

the investigator that the CI had recently been arrested and was hoping to receive 

consideration for his cooperation with police. The investigator asked the CI if he 

was on probation and the CI stated that he was not. The investigator told the CI 

that, if he cooperated, the investigator would try to contact someone for the CI so 

that the CI could use his cooperation as leverage in sentencing. 

¶9 When the investigator searched the CI at the police station after the 

controlled buy, he discovered the additional small baggie of methamphetamine 

inside a cigarette pack. The CI explained to the investigator that he was nervous 

and had forgotten to turn that methamphetamine over. While the CI told the 

investigator that he had observed Lewis with a black .45 caliber handgun at the 

house in which the controlled buy took place “within the week,” the CI 

acknowledged that he had not seen this gun during the controlled buy. 

¶10 The investigator was familiar with Lewis from a previous drug raid. 

The investigator knew that, during the execution of the prior search warrant, an 
No. 2022AP1135-CR

5

officer was injured while attempting to arrest Lewis, resulting in the officer needing 

to have surgery on his hand. However, when he testified in support of the warrant, 

the investigator had mistakenly believed that Lewis had been convicted of battery 

to an officer, when in fact the resulting conviction was resisting arrest, causing 

injury. 

¶11 The investigator learned from the suppression motion that the CI had 

lied about his probationary status and in fact had been on probation and had a 

warrant for his arrest at the time of the controlled buy. The investigator stated that 

it was department policy to gather background information on a CI, but the 

background investigation would not usually include examining the CI’s criminal 

history, so the investigator did not check the CI’s criminal history prior to working 

with him. 

¶12 The circuit court determined that the factual corrections asserted by 

Lewis would not have changed its decision regarding the warrant and therefore 

denied the motion to suppress. 

¶13 Lewis pled no contest to one count of delivery of cocaine, as a party 

to crime, and the court sentenced him. Lewis appeals, challenging the circuit court’s 

decision denying his suppression motion. 

Discussion

¶14 “The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees 

that persons shall be secure from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures and sets forth 

the manner in which warrants shall issue.’” State v. Sveum, 2010 WI 92, ¶18, 328 

Wis. 2d 369, 787 N.W.2d 317 (citation omitted). A constitutionally valid warrant 

requires “a demonstration upon oath or affirmation that there is probable cause to 
No. 2022AP1135-CR

6

believe that evidence sought will aid in a particular conviction for a particular 

offense ....” Id., ¶20. A search warrant is supported by probable cause if the 

warrant-issuing judge “had a substantial basis for concluding that there was a fair 

probability that a search of the specified premises would uncover evidence of 

wrongdoing.” State v. Romero, 2009 WI 32, ¶3, 317 Wis. 2d 12, 765 N.W.2d 756. 

¶15 Here, Lewis brought a Franks/Mann challenge to the validity of the 

search warrant. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978) (recognizing 

challenge to search warrant on claim that the warrant application included a false 

statement that was made deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth, where 

the statement was necessary to finding of probable cause); see also State v. Mann, 

123 Wis. 2d 375, 388, 367 N.W.2d 209 (1985) (“[A]n omitted fact [is] the 

equivalent of ‘a deliberate falsehood or a reckless disregard for the truth’” if it is 

“an undisputed fact that is critical to an impartial judge’s fair determination of 

probable cause.” (citation omitted)). If a defendant establishes that the search 

warrant application included false information or omitted material information, 

either deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth, the court must assess 

probable cause after that information is corrected. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56; 

Mann, 123 Wis. 2d at 388-89. We independently review whether the warrant 

application establishes probable cause after Franks/Mann corrections. See State v. 

Manuel, 213 Wis. 2d 308, 315, 570 N.W.2d 601 (Ct. App. 1997).

¶16 Lewis argues that the testifying investigator omitted the following 

material information during the warrant application: (1) that the investigator failed 

to follow the police department policies to ensure the reliability of the CI, including 

conducting a background check; (2) that the CI lied about his probationary status; 

(3) that the CI had an extensive criminal background; (4) that the CI had an active 

warrant for his arrest; (5) that the CI had hidden the fourth baggie of drugs inside a 
No. 2022AP1135-CR

7

cigarette pack, supporting an inference that the CI had tried to hide those drugs from 

the police; (6) that the CI was seeking consideration for his pending criminal case, 

and the investigator told the CI that, if he cooperated, the investigator would try to 

contact the district attorney and tell him the CI provided helpful information; and 

(7) that the CI did not see Lewis possess a gun on the day of the controlled buy. 

Lewis also asserts that the investigator included the following false information in 

support of the search warrant: (1) that the investigator had worked with the CI in 

the past and found him reliable, when in fact the current controlled buy was the first 

time the investigator worked with the CI; and (2) that Lewis had a prior conviction 

for battery to an officer, when in fact his prior conviction was for resisting arrest, 

causing injury.

¶17 Lewis contends that, with the above information corrected, the 

warrant lacked probable cause. Lewis argues that, because the investigator withheld 

material information and presented false information, the investigator’s testimony 

was insufficiently reliable and should have been afforded no weight by the warrantissuing judge. Lewis contends that the CI also lacked any reliability and the 

information he provided should not have been afforded any weight, either. 

¶18 Lewis contends that the recording of the controlled buy was also 

insufficiently reliable to establish probable cause for the search warrant. He argues 

that the investigator did not explain how he knew that the person in the recording 

was Lewis and that the CI was insufficiently reliable to identify him. He also argues 

that the quality of the recording was questionable because the investigator admitted 

that, when he reviewed the recording, he did not see the CI place the baggie of drugs 

inside a cigarette pack. 
No. 2022AP1135-CR

8

¶19 The State responds that Lewis has not shown that the investigator 

omitted any material information or offered any false information in support of the 

search warrant. It then contends that, even if Lewis has made that showing, the 

warrant was supported by probable cause with any missing or false information 

corrected. It contends that Lewis’s argument that the investigator and the CI were 

entirely lacking in reliability—and that all of the information they provided should 

therefore be disregarded—misapplies the legal standard under Franks/Mann. The 

State asserts that the proper test is whether, with the alleged omitted and false 

information corrected, the warrant is supported by probable cause. See Mann, 123 

Wis. 2d at 387. It contends that Lewis has offered no legal authority for the 

proposition that this court should disregard all of the facts offered by the investigator 

in support of the warrant based on the alleged omissions and misstatements. It 

contends that Lewis’s arguments may reflect on to whether the investigator should 

have utilized the CI as an initial matter, but that that inquiry is not relevant to the 

determination of whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause. It 

argues that the issue at this point of the proceedings is limited to whether, with the 

alleged omissions and misrepresentations corrected, the warrant is still supported 

by probable cause. 

¶20 The State also disputes Lewis’s contention that the recording of the 

controlled buy was unreliable. It asserts that the investigator explained that he 

watched the recording and could see the CI receive the drugs from Lewis, and that 

the buy occurred at Lewis’s residence following a recorded phone call with Lewis. 

It asserts that Lewis’s claim that identity is at issue defies logic and common sense. 

It also asserts that it was reasonable that the recording device worn on the CI’s body 

would not capture the CI placing a small baggie of drugs in a cigarette pack in his 

pocket. It contends that, even accepting that the CI’s credibility was called into 
No. 2022AP1135-CR

9

question, the recording of the controlled buy provided probable cause for the search 

warrant. 

¶21 In reply, Lewis contends that the State is wrong that the reliability of 

the CI is not critical to this case. He contends that his argument does not reflect on

whether the investigator should have utilized the CI in the first place but, rather,

whether the investigator’s testimony (and, in turn, the information the investigator 

received from the CI) was reliable given the investigator’s disregard for 

departmental policies designed to ensure the reliability of CIs. He contends that the 

reliability of the investigator’s testimony and his questionable use of an unreliable 

CI are relevant to our determination of probable cause. He contends that, under the 

legal standard identified by the State, the information provided by the investigator 

and the CI in the corrected warrant application was so unreliable that it did not 

provide probable cause. 

¶22 We begin by assuming without deciding, for purposes of this opinion 

only, that Lewis has established that the investigator provided false information and 

omitted other material information in support of the warrant application, either 

deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth. We conclude, however, that, 

with that information corrected, the warrant was supported by probable cause.2 

¶23 First, we are not persuaded by Lewis’s argument that, based on the 

investigator omitting material facts and offering false information, the investigator’s 

testimony lacks any credibility and may not be considered in the probable cause 

analysis. As the State points out, Lewis has not provided any authority for the 

 

2

 In his reply brief, Lewis argues that the State improperly cites to facts outside the warrant 

application as supporting probable cause for the search warrant. Our probable cause analysis is 

limited to the facts provided in support of the search warrant, as corrected in the ways that Lewis 

argues for. 
No. 2022AP1135-CR

10

proposition that this court should weigh the credibility of the investigator on appeal 

and disregard all of the information he provided. We also are not persuaded that the 

video recording cannot be considered because the investigator did not explain how 

he recognized Lewis or because he did not see the CI place a small baggie inside a 

cigarette pack. Rather, the facts offered by the investigator as part of the search 

warrant application, and which Lewis has not argued are false, remain part of the 

totality of the circumstances we consider in our probable cause analysis. See Illinois 

v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). 

¶24 We conclude that, with the corrections to the search warrant 

application as posited by Lewis, the search warrant was supported by probable 

cause. The facts in support of the search warrant continue to include the 

investigator’s testimony that he arranged a controlled buy between the CI and 

Lewis; that he searched the CI, found no drugs, and provided the CI with buy 

money; that the investigator met with the CI at the police station and recorded a 

phone call between the CI and Lewis, setting up the controlled buy; that the 

investigator viewed the videotape recording and saw Lewis provide the drugs to the 

CI; and that the CI made contact with the investigator after the buy and turned over 

several baggies of methamphetamine and cocaine. Those facts are sufficient to 

establish probable cause for the search warrant. See State v. Bruckner, 151 Wis. 2d 

833, 861, 447 N.W.2d 376 (Ct. App. 1989) (probable cause requires only a fair 

probability that evidence of a crime will be found at a particular place). 

¶25 Because we conclude that the investigator’s testimony as to the 

controlled buy—including the video recording of the drug transaction—established 

probable cause for the search warrant, we reject Lewis’s contention that the CI’s 

reliability is a significant factor in our probable cause analysis. That is, this is not a 

case where the CI provided information that depended on the CI’s veracity. Rather, 
No. 2022AP1135-CR

11

as explained, we conclude that probable cause was established by the investigator’s 

testimony as to the facts of the controlled buy that the investigator verified, 

including that the investigator was able to view the drug transaction on the video 

recording. Because that testimony was sufficient to support probable cause for the 

search warrant after the Frank/Mann corrections asserted by Lewis, the circuit 

court properly denied Lewis’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained through 

execution of the search warrant.3

By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.

RULE 809.23(1)(b)5. (2021-22).

 

3

 Lewis also argues in his brief-in-chief that the circuit court erred by issuing a no-knock 

warrant. Specifically, he argues that the court erred by considering the presence of a child as a 

supporting factor, pointing out that the considerations for a no-knock warrant are whether the facts 

present a threat of violence or reason to believe that evidence will likely be destroyed. See Wilson 

v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 936 (1995). He also asserts that the CI’s report that Lewis had possessed 

a gun the prior week did not support a no-knock warrant, both because the CI lacked reliability and 

because the CI did not see Lewis with a gun on the day of the controlled buy. However, in his 

reply brief, Lewis concedes the State’s points that the no-knock execution of a search warrant does 

not require prior judicial authorization, see State v. Henderson, 2001 WI 97, ¶29, 245 Wis. 2d 345, 

629 N.W.2d 613, and that the information known to police need only support reasonable suspicion 

that announcement would be dangerous or would allow for the destruction of evidence to support 

a no-knock execution of a search warrant, see Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 (1997). 

Lewis then contends, however, that the facts known to police did not provide reasonable suspicion 

for the no-knock execution of the search warrant. He argues that, because the investigator sought 

a warrant for the nighttime, there would not have been issues present that typically occur during 

drug investigations. He also contends that it was unclear why the officers would have believed that 

knocking and announcing would have been dangerous based on the presence of a child. Lewis’s 

claim that the no-knock execution of the search warrant was not supported by reasonable suspicion 

at the time of execution is both raised for the first time in reply and insufficiently developed. We 

do not address it further. See State v. Pettit, 171 Wis. 2d 627, 646-47, 492 N.W.2d 633 (Ct. App. 

1992) (undeveloped arguments not considered); Vermont Yogurt Co. v. Blanke Baer Fruit & 

Flavor Co., 107 Wis. 2d 603, 613, 321 N.W.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1982) (appellant’s arguments must 

be developed in brief-in-chief).