1 

2020 IL App (5th) 170229-U 

NO. 5-17-0229 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

FIFTH DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the 

 ) Circuit Court of 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Massac County.

 ) 

v. ) No. 15-CF-49

 ) 

RICHARD JOINER, ) Honorable

 ) Joseph J. Jackson, 

 Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JUSTICE OVERSTREET delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Moore and Boie concurred in the judgment.

 

 ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court rightly denied the defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing. 

¶ 2 On appeal from his conviction for unlawful possession of less than five grams of 

methamphetamine (720 ILCS 646/60(a), (b)(1) (West 2014)), the defendant, Richard 

Joiner, argues that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion for a Franks hearing 

(Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 3 FACTS

¶ 4 On June 6 or 7, 2015, using a confidential informant later identified as P.R., 

Deputy Chad Kaylor of the Massac County Sheriff’s Office conducted a controlled 

purchase of methamphetamine from the defendant at the defendant’s home in Brookport. 

NOTICE

Decision filed 08/24/20. The 

text of this decision may be 

changed or corrected prior to 

the filing of a Petition for 

Rehearing or the disposition of 

the same.

NOTICE

This order was filed under 

Supreme Court Rule 23 and 

may not be cited as precedent 

by any party except in the 

limited circumstances allowed 

under Rule 23(e)(1).
2 

On the afternoon of June 8, 2015, after Kaylor and P.R. appeared and attested to a 

complaint for a search warrant that Kaylor prepared following the controlled purchase, 

the trial court issued a warrant authorizing a search of the defendant’s home. In the

complaint for the warrant, which Kaylor and P.R. both signed, Kaylor stated that for 

more than six months, he had been receiving reports that the defendant had been selling 

methamphetamine and that P.R. had purchased methamphetamine from the defendant on 

several occasions during that time. Kaylor swore that the controlled buy at the 

defendant’s home had taken place “under [Kaylor’s] surveillance” and “[w]ithin the last 

48 hours.” Kaylor stated that he had searched P.R.’s person before P.R. entered the 

defendant’s residence and that the search had been “negative” for money or drugs. Kaylor 

advised that he had then given P.R. United States currency to use for the controlled buy. 

Kaylor further advised that after exiting the defendant’s home, P.R. possessed a quantity 

of methamphetamine that had been purchased from the defendant and that when searched 

again, P.R. did not have the money that Kaylor had previously provided. The complaint 

did not mention that after the initial search, P.R. had traveled to the defendant’s home in 

a motorhome and that Kaylor had followed him in a separate vehicle. Hours after the 

search warrant was issued, the defendant was arrested at his residence after the warrant 

was executed, and 4.9 grams of methamphetamine were found in a safe in the bathroom.

¶ 5 On June 9, 2015, the defendant was interviewed while in custody and admitted 

that the methamphetamine found in the safe was his. On June 10, 2015, the State filed an 

information charging the defendant with one count of possessing the methamphetamine 
3 

(count II) and one count of possessing the methamphetamine with the intent to deliver it 

(count I).

¶ 6 In April 2016, the defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence arguing that the 

allegations set forth in the complaint for the search warrant of his home were insufficient 

to justify the issuance of the warrant. In June 2016, the trial court held a hearing on the 

defendant’s motion to suppress, where Kaylor was the sole witness.

¶ 7 Kaylor testified that he had searched P.R.’s person prior to the controlled buy and 

had found no currency or contraband. Kaylor testified that he had also searched the “van 

cab” motorhome that P.R. had been driving and had not seen anything “out in the open.” 

Kaylor acknowledged that he had not explored “every nook and cranny” of the 

motorhome and had not had a “drug dog sniff around” the vehicle.

¶ 8 Kaylor explained that after providing P.R. with the cash to make the controlled 

purchase, he followed P.R. to the defendant’s residence and watched as P.R. entered and 

exited the home. P.R. then returned to his vehicle, and Kaylor followed him to a 

rendezvous point, where Kaylor searched him again. Kaylor testified that the second 

search revealed that P.R. was in possession of 1.25 grams of methamphetamine and did 

not have the money that Kaylor had given him prior to his entry into the defendant’s 

home.

¶ 9 Kaylor acknowledged that he had not previously used P.R. as a confidential 

informant and had first met him a few hours before the controlled buy. Kaylor testified 

P.R. had done informant work in Pope County on previous occasions, however, and that 

the sheriff of Pope County had personally recommended him. Kaylor acknowledged that 
4 

he had been aware that P.R. had a prior criminal history but had not included that 

information in the complaint for the search warrant. Kaylor further acknowledged that he 

could not state with 100% certainty that the methamphetamine found on P.R.’s person 

did not originate from P.R.’s motorhome. Kaylor did not specify when the controlled 

purchase had occurred, but he indicated that it had occurred prior to the date that the 

search warrant had been obtained.

¶ 10 The trial court subsequently denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, 

noting that when Kaylor and P.R. appeared before the court and swore to the complaint 

for the search warrant, P.R. had been “placed under oath.” In September 2016, the 

defendant filed a motion to suppress statements, which was also denied following a 

hearing.

¶ 11 On February 17, 2017, the defendant filed a motion for a Franks hearing. The 

motion alleged, inter alia, that P.R.’s claim that he had purchased methamphetamine 

from the defendant in June 2015 was a false statement that had been knowingly and 

intentionally made. Attached as exhibits to the motion were four affidavits: one from P.R. 

stating that he had purchased tools from the defendant on June 8, 2015; two from 

individuals stating that on June 11, 2015, P.R. had told them that he had purchased tools 

from the defendant; and one from an individual stating that she had been told that P.R. 

had falsely claimed that he had purchased drugs from the defendant and that someone had 

planted something in the defendant’s residence to get him arrested.

¶ 12 On February 27, 2017, the State filed a response to the defendant’s motion for a 

Franks hearing. The State maintained that the defendant’s motion failed to make a 
5 

substantial showing that the information presented in the complaint for the search warrant 

was false or that Kaylor, as the affiant officer, had recklessly or knowingly engaged in 

the presentation of any false information.

¶ 13 On March 2, 2017, the cause proceeded to a hearing on the defendant’s motion for 

a Franks hearing, and the defendant tendered a supplement to the motion. The 

defendant’s supplement noted that Kaylor’s warrant complaint had failed to disclose that 

P.R. had a criminal history and had traveled to the defendant’s residence in a motorhome 

that had not been thoroughly searched or subjected to a “drug dog sniff.” The supplement 

also included a second affidavit from P.R. in which he specifically stated that he had not 

purchased any controlled substances from the defendant on June 8, 2015, but that he had 

purchased tools from the defendant on that date. P.R.’s second affidavit further suggested 

that he had never purchased controlled substances from the defendant and that the 

defendant’s arrest had been orchestrated by the defendant’s girlfriend.

¶ 14 At the hearing on the motion, the defendant argued that he was entitled to a Franks

hearing in light of the affidavits he presented and the transcript of the hearing on his 

motion to suppress evidence. In response, the State again emphasized that the defendant 

had failed to make a substantial showing that Kaylor had recklessly or knowingly 

engaged in the presentation of any false information. The State suggested that any alleged 

malfeasance that could be attributed to P.R. was therefore irrelevant under the 

circumstances.

¶ 15 When denying the defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing, the trial court again 

noted that when P.R. appeared before the court on the complaint for the search warrant, 
6 

he had been placed under oath. The court further recalled that it had asked P.R. specific 

questions as to the basis of his knowledge before issuing the warrant authorizing the 

search of the defendant’s home. The court noted that Kaylor had “[o]bviously” relied on 

what P.R. had reported as well. The trial court concluded that P.R. could “recant his 

testimony” if he chose to do so but that there was no need for a Franks hearing.

¶ 16 On March 7, 2017, the cause proceeded to a jury trial, where the defendant was 

found guilty on count II and not guilty on count I. On March 20, 2017, the defendant filed 

a posttrial motion alleging, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a 

Franks hearing. 

¶ 17 On May 30, 2017, the trial court denied the defendant’s posttrial motion and 

ordered him to serve a four-year sentence on his conviction on count II. When addressing 

the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a Franks hearing, 

the court again emphasized that before issuing the warrant authorizing the search of the 

defendant’s home, the court had “placed [P.R.] under oath and asked additional 

questions.” The court then explained that Kaylor and the court had “both believed [P.R.], 

and the search warrant was issued on that basis.” On June 12, 2017, the defendant filed a 

timely notice of appeal.

¶ 18 DISCUSSION

¶ 19 The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for a Franks

hearing given that in P.R.’s second affidavit, P.R. indicated that he had not purchased 

methamphetamine from the defendant during the controlled buy as he had claimed. As an 

alternative ground, the defendant maintains that he is entitled to a Franks hearing because 
7 

Kaylor omitted crucial information from the complaint for a search warrant. We disagree 

and conclude that the trial court correctly determined that no crucial information was 

omitted and that P.R.’s apparent recantation of the controlled purchase was irrelevant 

under the circumstances.

¶ 20 In pertinent part, the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, made 

applicable to state officials through the fourteenth amendment, provides that “ ‘no 

Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation.’ ” 

People v. Manzo, 2018 IL 122761, ¶ 26 (quoting U.S. Const., amend. IV). In Franks, the 

United States Supreme Court held that the fourth and fourteenth amendments are violated 

where a search warrant is obtained upon an affidavit containing false information that is 

deliberately or recklessly provided. Franks, 438 U.S. at 154, 164-65, 171-72. The Court 

explained that because a trial judge must independently determine whether there is 

probable cause supporting the issuance of a search warrant, “it would be an unthinkable 

imposition upon his [or her] authority if a warrant affidavit, revealed after the fact to 

contain a deliberately or reckless false statement, were to stand beyond impeachment.” 

Id. at 165. The Court further held that where a violation occurs “and, with the affidavit’s 

false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish 

probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to 

the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.” Id. at 156.

¶ 21 The purpose of allowing Franks hearings is to deter misconduct on the part of the 

police. People v. Chambers, 2016 IL 117911, ¶ 45. In Franks, the defendant’s allegations 

were that the officers who obtained a warrant to search his apartment had done so in bad 
8 

faith with an affidavit based on fabricated and misrepresented information. Franks, 438 

U.S. at 157-58, 164. Notably, the Franks Court emphasized that “[t]he deliberate falsity 

or reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, 

not of any nongovernmental informant.” Id. at 171. The Court further explained that it 

was only addressing “the question of the integrity of the affiant’s representations as to his 

own activities.” Id. at 170.

¶ 22 As our supreme court has since noted, pursuant to Franks, if a 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, 

and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause,’ ” then a 

hearing on the matter must be held at the defendant’s request. Chambers, 2016 IL 

117911, ¶ 35 (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56). Whether a defendant has made a 

preliminary showing warranting a Franks hearing is reviewed de novo. Id. ¶ 79.

¶ 23 The defendant first maintains that he was entitled to a Franks hearing in light of 

P.R.’s apparent recantation of the controlled purchase described in Kaylor’s warrant 

application. Suggesting that P.R.’s express representations that the defendant had sold 

him methamphetamine during the controlled buy were essential to the trial court’s finding 

of probable cause, the defendant emphasizes that Kaylor had no independent knowledge 

that there was methamphetamine inside the defendant’s home. Kaylor was not required to 

obtain independent knowledge, however; he was only required to obtain probable cause. 

See People v. Exline, 98 Ill. 2d 150, 154 (1983). Probable cause exists where the facts 

and surrounding circumstances are sufficient to justify a reasonable belief that the 
9 

defendant is or has been involved in criminal activity. People v. Garvin, 219 Ill. 2d 104, 

115 (2006). Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required, and, “[i]ndeed, probable 

cause does not even demand a showing that the belief that the suspect has committed a 

crime be more likely true than false.” People v. Wear, 229 Ill. 2d 545, 564 (2008).

¶ 24 Here, because Kaylor personally supervised the controlled purchase in question, 

his sworn account of the transaction independently established probable cause justifying 

the trial court’s issuance of the search warrant. See People v. Blake, 266 Ill. App. 3d 232, 

242 (1994) (holding that where the affiant officer conducted controlled purchases of 

cocaine at the defendant’s residence, the officer’s “personal observations were sufficient 

to show that, more probably than not, cocaine would be found on the premises” 

independent of the information provided by the informant); cf. People v. Hoye, 311 Ill. 

App. 3d 843, 846-47 (2000) (holding that the defendant could challenge the veracity of 

the informant’s affidavit at a Franks hearing in the absence of an officer’s affidavit 

sufficiently supporting the warrant application). Thus, even setting aside P.R.’s allegedly 

false information, the remainder of Kaylor’s warrant application was facially sufficient.

Moreover, absent a preliminary showing of intentional, knowing, or reckless misconduct 

on the part of the affiant officer resulting in the presentation of false information, the 

recantations of an informant such as P.R. are irrelevant. See People v. Garcia, 2017 IL 

App (1st) 133398, ¶¶ 27, 32 (affirming the denial of the defendant’s request for a Franks

hearing where nothing indicated that the informant, who signed the affiant officer’s 

complaint and swore to its truth before the judge, had ever advised the officer that she 

had lied about purchasing drugs from the defendant the day before the search warrant was 
10

issued); People v. Creal, 391 Ill. App. 3d 937, 944-45 (2009) (holding that the defendant 

was not entitled to a Franks hearing where his motion and accompanying affidavits did 

not indicate that the affiant officer had any reason to believe that the informant, who 

appeared before the judge and signed an affidavit swearing to the truth of the officer’s 

complaint, was being untruthful); see also United States v. Dorfman, 542 F. Supp. 345, 

366 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (“The fact that a third party lied to the affiant, who in turn included 

the lies in a warrant affidavit, does not constitute a Franks violation. A Franks violation 

occurs only if the affiant knew the third party was lying, or if the affiant proceeded in 

reckless disregard of the truth.”); cf. Chambers, 2016 IL 117911, ¶¶ 9, 92-93 (holding 

that the defendant was entitled to a Franks hearing on his claim that the police had 

coerced the informant into providing false statements used to obtain a warrant); People v. 

Caro, 381 Ill. App. 3d 1056, 1067 (2008) (affirming the suppression of the fruits of the 

search warrant where the evidence at the Franks hearing established that the affiant 

officer acted with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements provided by 

the informant). 

¶ 25 Here, as previously noted, in P.R.’s second affidavit, in addition to indicating that 

he had never purchased any controlled substances from the defendant, he specifically 

claimed that he had not purchased any controlled substances from the defendant on June 

8, 2015. Assuming that P.R. intended to specifically state that he had not purchased any 

controlled substances from the defendant on the date of the controlled buy, i.e., June 6 or 

7, 2015, and further assuming the truth of that statement, nothing suggests, and the 

defendant has never alleged, that Kaylor, as the affiant officer, engaged in any 
11

intentional, knowing, or reckless misconduct that resulted in the presentation of the false 

information. As the trial court indicated below, given that P.R. had been questioned by 

the court under oath before the search warrant was issued, both Kaylor and the court had 

every reason to believe that the controlled purchase Kaylor conducted was, in fact, valid. 

Cf. People v. Lucente, 116 Ill. 2d 133, 148 (1987) (holding that the defendant was entitled 

to a Franks hearing on his claim that the affiant officer fabricated the alleged informant’s 

drug purchase described in the warrant application). Furthermore, “[w]hether probable 

cause exists in a particular case depends on the totality of facts and circumstances known 

to an affiant applying for a warrant at the time the warrant is sought” (People v. McCarty, 

223 Ill. 2d 109, 153 (2006)), and that P.R. later indicated that he had not purchased any 

methamphetamine during the controlled purchase at the defendant’s residence did not 

negate his previous representations that he had. We lastly note that the recantation of 

testimony is regarded as “inherently unreliable” (People v. Morgan, 212 Ill. 2d 148, 155 

(2004)) and that considered collectively, the affidavits the defendant provided in support 

of his motion for a Franks hearing suggest collusion between P.R., the defendant, and 

several of their acquaintances (see Garcia, 2017 IL App (1st) 133398, ¶ 34). In any 

event, because Kaylor’s sworn account of the controlled purchase independently 

established probable cause and because nothing suggests that he had any reason to doubt 

P.R.’s representations that the purchase was valid, the trial court correctly concluded that 

P.R.’s apparent recantation did not necessitate a Franks hearing.

¶ 26 Next, correctly observing that the reasoning of Franks extends to situations where 

information necessary for a determination of probable cause is intentionally or recklessly 
12

omitted from a warrant affidavit (People v. Hickey, 178 Ill. 2d 256, 282 (1997)), the 

defendant alternatively argues that he was entitled to a Franks hearing because Kaylor’s 

warrant application failed to advise the trial judge that P.R. had driven to the defendant’s 

house in a motorhome that had not been thoroughly searched. The defendant contends 

that “[t]his information was material to the determination of probable cause and was 

omitted for the purpose of misleading the magistrate.” We disagree.

¶ 27 Omitted information is material under Franks only if “it is of such a character that 

had it been included in the affidavit it would have defeated probable cause.” People v. 

Petrenko, 237 Ill. 2d 490, 500 (2010). Here, as the trial court implicitly found, that P.R. 

drove to the defendant’s house in a motorhome that had not been searched would not 

have defeated the court’s finding that Kaylor had probable cause to believe that P.R. had 

purchased methamphetamine from the defendant during the controlled buy. See People v. 

Morrison, 178 Ill. App. 3d 76, 83 (1988) (holding that the officer’s affidavit established 

probable cause to search the defendant’s residence for cocaine where the officer stated 

that he had given an individual money and watched the individual enter the residence and 

return with cocaine); cf. United States v. Jacobs, 986 F.2d 1231, 1235 (8th Cir. 1993) 

(holding that the failure to inform the magistrate judge that a drug-detection dog “had not 

alerted to” the package sought to be searched for drugs when led to do so effectively 

reduced probable cause to a reasonable suspicion). Furthermore, while it is arguable that 

Kaylor should have included the additional information in his warrant application, 

nothing suggests that Kaylor intentionally omitted the information in an attempt to 
13

somehow mislead the court, as the defendant contends on appeal. See People v. 

Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187, 219, 224 (2006).

¶ 28 In his complaint for a warrant, Kaylor advised that he had searched P.R.’s person 

before P.R. entered the defendant’s home and that the search had revealed no money or 

drugs. Kaylor further advised that after exiting the home, P.R. possessed 

methamphetamine that had been purchased from the defendant and did not have the cash 

that Kaylor had previously provided. Kaylor’s complaint also alleged that for more than

six months, he had been receiving reports that the defendant had been selling 

methamphetamine and that P.R. had purchased methamphetamine from the defendant on 

several occasions during that time. Although Kaylor later acknowledged that he could not 

state with 100% certainty that the methamphetamine he obtained from P.R. had not 

originated from P.R.’s motorhome, such certainty was not required, and nothing suggests 

that Kaylor observed anything that would have caused him to question the legitimacy of 

the controlled buy. Under the circumstances, the trial court did not err in rejecting the 

defendant’s claim that he was entitled to a Franks hearing on the grounds that Kaylor’s 

warrant complaint omitted the fact that P.R. had travelled to the defendant’s residence in 

a motorhome that had not been thoroughly searched or subjected to a “drug dog sniff.”

¶ 29 CONCLUSION 

¶ 30 As noted, the purpose of allowing Franks hearings is to deter misconduct on the 

part of the police. Chambers, 2016 IL 117911, ¶ 45. In the present case, it cannot be said 

that Kaylor, as the affiant officer, engaged in any intentional, knowing, or reckless 

misconduct when obtaining the search warrant for the defendant’s home. Furthermore, 
14

even in the absence of P.R.’s express representations that the defendant had sold him 

methamphetamine during the controlled purchase in question, Kaylor’s description of the 

transaction independently justified the warrant’s issuance. We thus conclude that the trial 

court rightly denied the defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing and accordingly affirm 

the court’s judgment.

¶ 31 Affirmed.