Illinois Official Reports 

Supreme Court

People v. Chambers, 2016 IL 117911

Caption in Supreme

Court:

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellant, v. 

TERRILL CHAMBERS, Appellee.

Docket No. 117911

Filed January 22, 2016

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Appellate Court for the First District; heard in that 

court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Hon. 

Luciano Panici, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Appellate court judgment affirmed.

Circuit court judgment reversed.

Counsel on

Appeal

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Anita Alvarez, 

State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg and William 

Toffenetti, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

Michael J. Pelletier, State Appellate Defender, Alan D. Goldberg, 

Deputy Defender, and Tomas G. Gonzalez, Assistant Appellate 

Defender, of the Office of the State Appellate Defender, of Chicago, 

for appellee.
- 2 - 

Justices CHIEF JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the judgment of the court, 

with opinion.

Justices Freeman, Thomas, Kilbride, Karmeier, Burke, and Theis 

concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION 

¶ 1 A search warrant was served at a home belonging to defendant Terrill Chambers’ mother. 

He was found inside, along with a large quantity of cocaine, cash, weapons, and ammunition. 

The circuit court of Cook County denied his repeated requests for a hearing pursuant to Franks 

v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). After a jury trial, he was convicted of armed violence and 

unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and sentenced to 

consecutive terms of 25 and 45 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, he argued that the trial court 

erred by denying his request for a Franks hearing. The appellate court held that the trial court 

should have conducted a Franks hearing and remanded to allow the trial court to conduct the 

hearing and to determine whether the search warrant was properly issued. 2014 IL App (1st) 

120147. This court allowed the State’s petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme 

Court Rule 315 (eff. July 1, 2013). For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

¶ 2 BACKGROUND 

¶ 3 On April 19, 2007, Markham police officer Tony DeBois filed a complaint for a search 

warrant for the house at 15227 Parkside in Markham, Illinois, and for any safe or lockbox 

within the residence. In support of the warrant application, DeBois and a confidential 

informant identified as “John Doe” signed the complaint and swore to the truth of its contents 

in the presence of the judge. 

¶ 4 In the complaint, DeBois stated that he had been a police officer for 11 years and that he 

was assigned to a tactical gang and narcotics unit. In that role, he had been investigating 

suspected narcotics sales from the 15227 Parkside address for three months based on numerous 

calls about marijuana being sold there by defendant. 

¶ 5 The complaint further stated that at about 4:30 p.m. the previous day, near 15110 Cherry 

Street, Doe and two other men were detained by police and then transported to the Markham 

police department. At the time of his arrest, Doe was in possession of six plastic bags of 

marijuana that he stated he had purchased earlier that afternoon from defendant at the Parkside 

address for $60. 

¶ 6 The complaint also stated that Doe was known to the officer because he had previously 

assisted him in other narcotics and weapons cases. According to the complaint, Doe told the 

officer that he knew defendant and had been inside the Parkside residence on several occasions 

and that he had seen cannabis and firearms there. Further, DeBois stated that the informant 

identified defendant’s mug shot and signed the photograph on the back.1

 

1No signed mug shot is in the record. 
- 3 - 

¶ 7 Later that morning, officers from the Illinois State Police, the Cook County sheriff’s 

department, and the Markham police department, including Officer DeBois, served the search 

warrant. Inside the home, they found defendant, along with a quantity of cannabis, two large 

bags of cocaine weighing 1718.4 grams in total, and approximately $52,000 in cash. In 

addition, the officers discovered jewelry valued at almost $69,000, several types of 

ammunition, and firearms including: a loaded AK-47 assault rifle, a Taurus .40-caliber 

handgun, a Glock .40-caliber pistol with an extended 29-round magazine, a Marlin 

lever-action .22-caliber rifle, a .410-gauge shotgun, a 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun, a 

.45-caliber semiautomatic rifle, and a .38-caliber snub-nosed revolver. 

¶ 8 Defendant, who was alone in the house at the time of the search, was arrested and was later 

charged by indictment with 36 counts of armed violence, nine counts of unlawful use of a 

weapon by a felon, two counts of unlawful use of a weapon based on his possession of a 

“machine gun,” one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (over 

900 grams of cocaine), one count of possession of a controlled substance, one count of 

possession of cannabis with intent to deliver, and one count of possession of cannabis. 

¶ 9 Defendant filed a motion for a Franks hearing alleging that the officer either knew that the 

allegations in the complaint were false or that he made the statements with reckless disregard 

for the truth. Specifically, defendant claimed that the officer’s statements that the informant 

had been known to him for over one year and that the informant had assisted in other cases 

were false because the officer had been employed by the Markham police department for only 

three days when he applied for the warrant. Similarly, the officer’s statement that he had been 

conducting narcotics-related investigations regarding the 15227 Parkside address for “the past 

3 months” was also false because the officer was not employed in Markham during that time. 

In addition, defendant asserted that he had been at another location at the time Doe claimed to 

have purchased marijuana from him at 15227 Parkside. Defendant submitted affidavits from 

his mother, stepfather, girlfriend, and a family friend. In sum, the affidavits averred that 

defendant was at the residence he shared with his mother and stepfather at 3031 Sherwood 

Avenue in Markham, doing plumbing work with his stepfather, at the time of the alleged sale 

of marijuana at the house on Parkside. His mother stated that she had recently inherited the 

home on Parkside and that it was undergoing rehabilitation by a contractor. 

¶ 10 Defendant also asked the trial court to take judicial notice that there is no Cherry Street in 

Markham, so the officer could not have stopped Doe’s car there. He provided exhibits showing 

that there is a Cherry Lane in Markham, but it ends south of 152nd Street; thus, the 15100 

block of Cherry Lane does not exist. The land immediately north of 152nd Street is a heavily 

wooded park, with no automobile access. 

¶ 11 The State’s response did not address the specific allegations of falsehoods in the complaint. 

Rather, the State argued that because the informant appeared with the officer at the warrant 

hearing, this case “clearly falls outside the scope of Franks,” so the court “need not address 

whether the defendant made a substantial preliminary showing that statements in the complaint 

were either deliberately false or made with reckless disregard of the truth.”

¶ 12 The court granted defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing. The court noted that although 

all but one of the affidavits offered by defendant were by members of his family, one affidavit 

was from an unrelated family friend who worked as a dispatcher for a law enforcement agency. 

In addition, the stop could not have occurred at the address listed in the complaint; that address 
- 4 - 

would have placed the stop “in the middle of a forest preserve.” This led to the court’s 

conclusion that the warrant affidavit “contains deliberately included falsehoods or there was a 

reckless disregard for the truth.”

¶ 13 The case was transferred to another judge who set a date in July 2010 for the Franks

hearing. On the scheduled hearing date, the State filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that 

defendant had not made the requisite preliminary showing to entitle him to a Franks hearing 

for two reasons. First, the incorrect Cherry Street address in the warrant application was due to 

two typographical errors, one in the name of the street and the other in the number of the 

address. The arrest report showed that the traffic stop occurred at 15410 Cherry Lane, which, 

the State asserted, is a real Markham address. Further, the individual who provided the only 

affidavit from a nonfamily member claimed that she saw defendant at the Sherwood Avenue 

house between 11 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on the day that Doe claimed to have purchased marijuana 

from him at about 4:30 p.m. Only his stepfather’s and girlfriend’s affidavits claimed to have 

seen him there in the late afternoon. 

¶ 14 Defendant responded that the motion to reconsider, filed a year and a half after the motion 

for a Franks hearing was granted, was untimely. On the merits, defendant argued that he had 

made the requisite substantial preliminary showing. 

¶ 15 In granting the motion to reconsider, the court noted that it was following the rule 

established in People v. Gorosteata, 374 Ill. App. 3d 203 (2007) (Franks hearing is not 

required when the confidential informant appeared in court at the warrant proceeding). 

¶ 16 Defendant filed a second motion seeking a Franks hearing, in which he reiterated his 

original arguments and also asserted that the signatures of “John Doe” on the warrant 

complaint and on the mug shot did not match and that the police did not keep a file on the 

confidential informant. 

¶ 17 The second Franks motion was also accompanied by the video-recorded statement of 

Aaron Lindsey, who was a 17-year-old high school senior at the time of his arrest on April 18, 

2007. Lindsey stated that after he left school that afternoon, driving his mother’s car, he picked 

up two friends, Miles Copeland and Jeron Cotton. Copeland was behind the wheel, and they 

were smoking marijuana in the car before they were stopped on Cherry Lane by two 

plainclothes officers in an unmarked police car. The officers found six plastic bags of 

marijuana and a handgun in the car, and the three men were arrested and taken to the Markham 

police department. After several hours in lockup, Lindsey was questioned by one of the 

arresting officers and another officer. He explained that the gun belonged to his stepfather and 

that he had purchased the marijuana at school. He did not tell the officers that he bought the 

marijuana from defendant, he did not identify or sign a mug shot of defendant, he did not sign 

an affidavit for a search warrant, and he did not appear before the judge who issued the search 

warrant. He did not meet or speak to Officer DeBois during this entire process. 

¶ 18 Lindsey, who is defendant’s cousin, stated that defendant told him that he had learned 

through discovery that the alleged informant was stopped on Cherry Lane on April 18, 2007, 

and that he had both marijuana and a gun in the car. Because these circumstances matched the 

circumstances of Lindsey’s arrest, he and defendant began to suspect that Lindsey was the 

alleged confidential informant who was purported to have provided the basis for the search 

warrant. They concluded that the police must have identified him, without his knowledge or 

cooperation, as the source of the information used to obtain the warrant. 
- 5 - 

¶ 19 Lindsey’s account is corroborated at least in part by a Markham police department 

Offense/Incident Report dated April 18, 2007, at 16:45 hours. The reporting officer, a D. 

Walker, stated that he observed a vehicle improperly parked in the roadway on Cherry Lane. 

The driver was not wearing a seatbelt. The vehicle sped away and then stopped in front of 

15410 Cherry Lane. Three occupants exited the vehicle and attempted to walk away, despite 

the officers’ instructions to remain in the vehicle. When they were stopped, green plant 

material was observed on the shirts of all three subjects and an “extremely strong odor of 

cannabis” was coming from inside the car. More green plant material was observed in plain 

view on the front seats and floorboards of the car. A search revealed a plastic bag containing 

six plastic bags of marijuana. The three occupants of the vehicle were arrested.2

¶ 20 In addition, defendant’s second Franks motion alleged that Officer DeBois’s statement in 

the warrant complaint that he was a Markham police officer with 11 years’ experience was 

false because he failed to disclose that he had previously been dismissed from the Harvey 

police department and was not employed as a police officer for a significant period of time 

prior to joining the Markham police department only days before defendant’s arrest.

¶ 21 The State denied that Aaron Lindsey was the confidential informant upon whose 

information the warrant application was based and urged the court to reject any reliance on 

Lindsey’s statement because he was defendant’s cousin and defendant had transported Lindsey 

to his lawyer’s office to give the recorded statement.

¶ 22 The court denied defendant’s motion, finding Lindsey’s statement not credible and again 

relying on Gorosteata, stating that the “affidavit is sufficient on its face for probable cause.”

¶ 23 After this court denied defendant’s motion for a supervisory order, he filed a third motion 

for a Franks hearing, this time attaching an affidavit from Miles Copeland, who stated that he 

had been behind the wheel of Lindsey’s car at the time of the stop on Cherry Lane. As he and 

the two other men were being escorted in to the police station, Lindsey told him that he would 

take the “wrap” [sic] for the “weed” and for the gun, which was registered to Lindsey’s 

stepfather. 

¶ 24 Copeland stated that he had been the John Doe witness and that he had signed a false 

affidavit because Officer DeBois threatened him with five years in prison if he did not do so. 

He claimed that he and Lindsey had acquired the six bags of marijuana in an armed robbery, 

not from the defendant. He stated that he did not know the defendant and had not visited him at 

the Parkside address. Copeland further stated that he was never an informant for the police 

before this arrest and that Officer DeBois knew that the statements in the affidavit presented to 

the issuing judge were false and perjurious. 

¶ 25 Copeland asserted in his affidavit that Officer DeBois took him to the Markham courthouse 

for the warrant hearing and on the way there “kept schooling” him as to what he was expected 

to say and do. When he was brought before the judge, he raised his right hand and was sworn 

in. The judge told him that if he was lying, he faced three to five years in prison for perjury. He 

signed the forms that were placed in front of him and was taken back to the police station. 

¶ 26 At the hearing on this motion, the State pointed out that the Copeland affidavit contradicted 

the Lindsey sworn statement. In addition, the State argued that under Gorosteata no Franks

 

2The record contains only one page of the report, although it indicates that it continues onto another 

page. 
- 6 - 

hearing will be granted when the informant appeared before the judge at the warrant 

proceeding. The court denied the defendant’s third Franks motion, again relying on 

Gorosteata. 

¶ 27 The State nol prossed all but eight counts of armed violence and one count of possession of 

a controlled substance with intent to deliver. At trial, defendant presented no evidence. The 

jury found him guilty of four counts of armed violence, deadlocked on one count, and acquitted 

him on three counts. The jury also found him guilty of the narcotics charge. The court 

sentenced defendant to 25 years in prison for the armed violence convictions and 45 years for 

the narcotics conviction, the sentences to run consecutively. 

¶ 28 On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by denying him a Franks hearing and that his 

sentence was excessive. Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the appellate court rejected 

the premise that a Franks hearing is never warranted if the informant who provides 

information necessary to the issuance of the warrant appears before the magistrate. 2014 IL 

App (1st) 120147, ¶ 16. Rather, the appellate court concluded, the informant’s appearance and 

testimony before an issuing judge is “but one factor to consider in determining whether to grant 

a Franks hearing, but it does not categorically preclude the court from holding a Franks 

hearing.” Id. ¶ 15. Thus, the court held, if a defendant “has evidence that the affiant-officer 

acted intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth by presenting a warrant affidavit 

with false allegations, he should be given the opportunity to present that evidence before the 

trial court.” Id. ¶ 17. 

¶ 29 Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the appellate court found that the 

affidavits submitted by the defendant “raise a question of defendant’s presence at the relevant 

address at the time of the incident and are sufficiently detailed to subject the affiants to the 

penalties of perjury if their allegations are untrue.” Id. ¶ 21. In addition to the alibi affidavits, 

defendant “also submitted an affidavit from the purported confidential informant, Copeland, 

who explicitly averred that he made false allegations against defendant because he was 

threatened by Officer DeBois.” Id. Copeland’s affidavit, if believed, meets the standard of a 

sufficient showing that the officer “had knowledge that the allegations in the complaint for a 

search warrant were false.” Id. Thus, the court concluded, the defendant should be afforded the 

opportunity to present this evidence at a Franks hearing. Id. The appellate court held that the 

trial court abused its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine the 

credibility of the affiants and to resolve the inconsistencies between the Lindsey and Copeland 

affidavits. Id. ¶ 22. 

¶ 30 ANALYSIS 

¶ 31 As appellant before this court, the State argues that the appellate court’s decision should be 

reversed for two reasons. First, the State argues for the adoption of a bright-line rule that the 

appearance of the nongovernmental confidential informant before the judge prior to the 

issuance of a search warrant completely removes this case from the ambit of Franks. Second, 

the State argues that even if the appearance of the informant before the issuing judge does not 

necessarily preclude a Franks hearing, the appellate court in the present case failed to give 

proper deference to the trial court’s decision to deny a Franks hearing. 

¶ 32 Defendant argues that the proper standard of review of the denial of a Franks hearing is 

de novo. Further, he argues that, as a matter of law, his request for a Franks hearing comes well 
- 7 - 

within the ambit of the rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in Franks. Finally, he argues that 

the appellate court properly found that he has made a sufficient showing to warrant a Franks

hearing. 

¶ 33 The Ambit of the Rule of Franks v. Delaware

¶ 34 In Franks, the issue presented was whether “a defendant in a criminal proceeding ever 

[has] the right, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, subsequent to the ex parte

issuance of a search warrant, to challenge the truthfulness of factual statements made in an 

affidavit supporting the warrant.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 155. 

¶ 35 The Court held that “where 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, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary 

to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the 

defendant’s request.” Id. at 155-56. This rule, the Court stated, maintains the traditional 

“presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant.” Id. at 171. 

Thus, the “challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more 

than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of 

reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of 

proof.” Id. 

¶ 36 The Court emphasized that the rule it announced in Franks “has a limited scope, both in 

regard to when exclusion of the seized evidence is mandated, and when a hearing on 

allegations of misstatements must be accorded.” Id. at 167. Further, the “deliberate falsity or 

reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any 

nongovernmental informant.” Id. at 171. 

¶ 37 This court considered the issue in a case involving a warrant application based on an 

informant’s tip in People v. Lucente, 116 Ill. 2d 133 (1987). The defendant, who was charged 

with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, filed a motion for a Franks 

hearing, seeking to quash the warrant and arrest and to suppress the seized evidence. Id. at 140. 

In support of his motion, he alleged that the officer’s affidavit in support of the warrant 

application contained intentional misrepresentations, specifically that a confidential informant 

had told the officer that he purchased marijuana from the defendant at his apartment at 8:30 

p.m. the previous evening. Id. at 139-40. The officer’s affidavit also stated that the informant 

had provided information in eight previous cases, each leading to an arrest and five resulting in 

convictions. Id. at 140. The defendant’s motion was supported by affidavits from himself, his 

sister, and his wife stating that they were together at the sister’s home at the time of the alleged 

sale to the informant. Id. The circuit court granted the motion, held a Franks hearing, quashed 

the warrant, and suppressed the evidence seized. Id. at 139. The appellate court affirmed, as did 

this court. Id. at 155. 

¶ 38 The first issue this court addressed was the State’s contention that the defendant should not 

have been granted a Franks hearing because he failed to make the requisite substantial 

preliminary showing, which we called the “linchpin” of the Franks procedure. Id. at 147. After 

noting the presumption of validity regarding the affidavit supporting a search warrant, we 

noted that this case differed from Franks in one crucial respect: “the warrant affidavit [in the 

present case] was based entirely on information furnished by a confidential informant.” 
- 8 - 

(Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 147-48. We observed that “the defendant’s preliminary showing is 

in the nature of an alibi, tending to establish that someone—either the informant or the 

officer—fabricated the transaction described in the warrant affidavit.” Id. at 148. 

¶ 39 The State’s position was that the defendant’s showing was insufficient because it did not 

negate the possibility that it was the informant, rather than the officer, who was the source of 

the false statement. Id. This court noted that if this were the requirement, an alibi, no matter 

how strong, would never be sufficient to justify a Franks hearing because the source of a 

falsehood in the warrant complaint could not be determined without a Franks hearing. Id. 

¶ 40 Rejecting such a framework, this court declined to apply Franks “so inflexibly as to make 

hearings unattainable.” Id. at 149. In keeping with the purpose of Franks, “to provide 

meaningful, albeit limited, deterrence of and protection against perjurious warrant 

applications,” this court held that “Franks does not require defendants faced with 

anonymous-informant-based warrants to do the impossible. As a preliminary matter, the 

defendant cannot be required to establish what an anonymous, perhaps nonexistent, informant 

did or did not say.” Id. at 150. 

¶ 41 What is required is that the defendant’s preliminary showing be more than a mere request 

and more than an unsubstantiated denial. Id. at 151. However, because the defendant’s burden 

at the Franks hearing itself is preponderance of the evidence, the preliminary showing may, 

logically, be something less. Id. at 151-52. This court did not precisely define this threshold, 

except to say that it “lies somewhere between mere denials on the one hand and proof by a 

preponderance on the other.” Id. at 152. 

¶ 42 Lucente differs from the present case in one vital respect. While Lucente involved 

allegedly false statements attributed by the officer to a confidential informant, the informant 

did not appear at the hearing on the warrant application. The appellate court, however, has 

considered several cases in which the informant did appear. 

¶ 43 The State urges us to adopt the bright-line rule set out by the appellate court in People v. 

Gorosteata, 374 Ill. App. 3d 203 (2007). In that case, a police officer’s complaint for issuance 

of a search warrant stated that the officer had spoken to a “concerned citizen,” who had told 

him that he had purchased marijuana from the defendant at a specific address on a specific 

date. Id. at 205-06. The concerned citizen, identified as John Doe, accompanied the officer 

when he presented his complaint to the circuit court. Id. at 206. 

¶ 44 Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion for a Franks hearing; the motion was 

accompanied by affidavits from the defendant and several family members. The gist of the 

affidavits was that the family was gathered at the address on that date to celebrate a child’s 

birthday and that no one else came to the apartment on that date to be shown, smoke, or 

purchase marijuana. Thus, the defendant averred, the officer relied on the informant’s account 

in reckless disregard of the truth. Id.

¶ 45 The appellate court acknowledged the purpose of allowing Franks hearings is to deter 

police misconduct, but noted that Franks itself was concerned with deliberate falsity or 

reckless disregard of the truth by the affiant police officer, “ ‘not of any nongovernmental 

informant.’ ” Id. at 212 (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 171). The court also quoted United States 

v. Owens for the proposition that “ ‘[i]t is not enough to show that the informant lied to an 

unsuspecting affiant, or that an affiant’s negligence or innocent mistake resulted in false 
- 9 - 

statements in the affidavit.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Owens, 882 F.2d 1493, 1499 (10th 

Cir. 1989)). 

¶ 46 The court rejected the defendant’s claim of error on two separate bases. First, the affidavits 

were “suspect to begin with, since they all derive[d] from family members,” and they did not 

preclude the possibility of the narcotics transaction that John Doe recounted to the officer 

because they did not assert that the defendant was constantly in the company of family 

members on the date in question. Id. at 212-13. This alone would have been a sufficient basis 

for affirming the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing. Id. at 213. 

¶ 47 The court nevertheless considered the fact that “John Doe personally testified before the 

magistrate at the time [the officer] applied for the search warrant.” Id. This fact, the court 

concluded, “removed this case from the ambit of Franks.” Id. The court reasoned that “when a 

nongovernmental informant is personally brought before the magistrate to testify to the facts 

that will establish probable cause in a warrant, the burden of determining the reliability of the 

informant then shifts to the court and away from law enforcement personnel.” Id. 

¶ 48 Thus, even if the officer avoided making any representations about the reliability of the 

informant because he was “an unknown quantity to police,” any failure to elicit information 

from the informant that would have tested his credibility “ ‘lies with the issuing magistrate and 

not with the law enforcement officers.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. at 214 (quoting State v. 

Jensen, 915 P.2d 109, 116 (Kan. 1996)). As a result, Franks “ ‘does not apply in such instances 

because there exists no governmental misconduct that could be detected or deterred by a 

Franks hearing.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Moore, 773 P.2d 96, 98 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989) (Franks

hearing is not required even if the testimony of nongovernmental affiant is later shown to have 

been intentionally false or gathered in a manner that would have been unconstitutional if done 

by a governmental agent)). 

¶ 49 Finally, the appellate court noted one of its own earlier decisions in which it held that when 

an informant appears before the magistrate, “it is not even necessary for the police to 

corroborate the informant’s account since ‘the judge issuing the search warrant ha[s] an 

opportunity to *** determine the basis of [the informant’s] knowledge.’ ” Id. (quoting People 

v. Phillips, 265 Ill. App. 3d 438, 448 (1994)). 

¶ 50 Another division of the same district of the appellate court reached a different result in 

People v. Caro, 381 Ill. App. 3d 1056 (2008). The defendant was charged with unlawful use of 

a weapon after a search of his apartment revealed a shotgun with a barrel measuring less than 

18 inches. Id. at 1058. The search had been conducted pursuant to a warrant obtained based on 

information provided by a John Doe informant, who claimed to have purchased cocaine from 

the defendant at his apartment on a particular date. The officer who submitted the complaint 

and affidavit for the search warrant brought John Doe before the judge, who interviewed him, 

under oath, for approximately ten minutes regarding the facts alleged in the warrant 

application. Id. at 1057-58. 

¶ 51 The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing, which was supported 

by the defendant’s own affidavit and affidavits from his two roommates, one of whom, David, 

was also his brother. Id. at 1058-59. As in Gorosteata, these affidavits offered an alibi for the 

date of the purported drug sale. The defendant stated that the night before the alleged drug sale, 

he had gone to bed at about 10 p.m. He woke at 6:30 a.m. and left for work at 7 a.m. At 

approximately 7:30 p.m., he returned from work. His roommates were home when he arrived; 
- 10 - 

he ate dinner, watched television, and went to bed. No one came to the apartment that evening. 

Id. at 1058. 

¶ 52 His brother’s affidavit stated that he, too, had gone to bed early. He got up at 3:30 a.m. and 

left for his job as a machine operator at 4 a.m. He worked until 1:30 p.m. and returned home to 

an empty apartment at 2 p.m. The third roommate came home at 4 p.m., and the two men 

cooked dinner and watched television until he went to bed about 7:30 p.m. He heard defendant 

enter the apartment at about 8 p.m. He did not see anyone else in the apartment on that date. Id.

at 1059. 

¶ 53 The third roommate stated in his affidavit that he woke up at 6:15 a.m. on the date of the 

alleged drug sale and left for work at 6:45. He returned home about 4 p.m. and made dinner and 

watched television with David. The defendant returned to the apartment as he was getting 

ready to go to bed. No one, other than he and his two roommates, was in the apartment on that 

date. Id. 

¶ 54 Based on these three affidavits, the trial court granted the motion for a Franks hearing. 

After the hearing, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to quash the search warrant 

and suppress evidence. Id. at 1061. On appeal, the State, relying on Gorosteata, argued that the 

trial court erred as a matter of law by granting a Franks hearing when the informant had 

personally testified at the hearing on the warrant application. 

¶ 55 The appellate court rejected the State’s argument that this case fell outside the scope of 

Franks, holding that the informant’s testimony at the warrant hearing does not categorically 

preclude a Franks hearing. Id. at 1065. Rather, the court concluded, such a rule would defeat 

the purpose of Franks “by allowing a warrant affidavit, revealed after the fact to contain a 

deliberately or recklessly false statement, to stand beyond impeachment as long as the 

nongovernmental informant testified before the judge issuing the search warrant.” Id. at 1066. 

Further, “Franks simply contains no language precluding an attack on the warrant affidavit 

when a nongovernmental informant testifies before the issuing judge.” Id. The appellate court 

not only rejected the State’s position that the case fell outside the scope of Franks, it also ruled 

on the merits that the trial court did not err by granting a Franks hearing. Id. at 1063. 

¶ 56 The defendant urges this court to reject the rigid approach of Gorosteata and to adopt the 

more flexible approach of Caro, which would look at the substance of the Franks motion and 

supporting documents to determine whether the defendant has made the required substantial 

preliminary showing. 

¶ 57 The State argues that this approach would undermine the purpose of Franks, which is to 

deter police misconduct in the obtaining of search warrants. According to the State, when a 

warrant is procured based on a false statement made by an informant, the officer satisfies his 

obligation by bringing the informant to court and subjecting him to questioning under oath by 

the issuing judge. The judge, not the officer, should question the basis of the informant’s 

knowledge and determine his credibility. The State further insists, without explanation, that the 

Caro rule will actually discourage officers from bringing informants to a judge for 

questioning. 

¶ 58 In the present case, the informant appeared with Officer DeBois at the warrant proceeding, 

was sworn in, and signed the affidavit as “John Doe” in the presence of the court. There is

some disagreement about what else occurred during the hearing. The informant, now 

tentatively identified as Copeland, states in his affidavit that he was not questioned by the 
- 11 - 

judge and did not actually testify. Indeed, he claims that he was specifically instructed by the 

officer not to speak. In its reply brief, the State asserts that it “strains credulity to believe that 

any judge would place a confidential informant under oath and then issue a search warrant 

based on that informant’s information without asking him any questions.” At oral argument, 

the State’s position was that the judge “almost certainly asked the affiant” about the underlying 

facts and, therefore, had the opportunity to test the veracity of his allegations. 

¶ 59 Under the reasoning of Gorosteata, however, it would not matter whether the informant 

actually testified or even that he remained silent because he was directed to do so by an officer 

who intentionally falsified the information in the warrant affidavit. Once the officer presented 

the informant to the court, the burden of finding the truth would have been entirely on the 

court. Gorosteata, 379 Ill. App. 3d at 213. 

¶ 60 We decline to adopt such a rule, which would shield police misconduct such as conspiring 

with an informant or coercing an informant into making false statements in an affidavit or in 

testimony to the court. Such a rule would undermine the purpose of Franks.

¶ 61 In Franks, the Court noted that the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment is 

predicated on the assumption that there will be a “truthful showing” to the issuing court, from 

which it can determine whether probable cause exists. “This does not mean ‘truthful’ in the 

sense that every fact recited in the warrant affidavit is necessarily correct, for probable cause 

may be founded upon hearsay and upon information received from informants, as well as upon 

information within the affiant’s own knowledge that sometimes must be garnered hastily. But 

surely it is to be ‘truthful’ in the sense that the information put forth is believed or 

appropriately accepted by the affiant as true.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 165. “Because it is the 

magistrate who must determine independently whether there is probable cause, [citations], it 

would be an unthinkable imposition upon his authority if a warrant affidavit, revealed after the 

fact to contain a deliberately or recklessly false statement, were to stand beyond 

impeachment.” Id.

¶ 62 The Court acknowledged the reality that the warrant “hearing before the magistrate not 

always will suffice to discourage lawless or reckless misconduct. The pre-search proceeding is 

necessarily ex parte ***. The usual reliance of our legal system on adversary proceedings itself 

should be an indication that an ex parte inquiry is likely to be less vigorous. The magistrate has 

no acquaintance with the information that may contradict the good faith and reasonable basis 

of the affiant’s allegations. The pre-search proceeding will frequently be marked by haste, *** 

[and the] urgency will not always permit the magistrate to make an extended independent 

examination of the affiant or other witnesses.” Id. at 169. 

¶ 63 We, therefore, reject the bright-line rule of Gorosteata and hold that the presence of the 

informant at the ex parte hearing on the warrant application does not, standing alone, foreclose 

the possibility of a Franks hearing. When the defendant claims intentional, knowing, or 

reckless conduct by the affiant officer resulting in the presentation of false information to the 

issuing judge, the presence of the informant who allegedly provided that information is merely 

a factor to be considered when deciding whether a substantial preliminary showing has been 

made. Thus, Gorosteata, 374 Ill. App. 3d 203, and all cases applying the rule enunciated 

therein are hereby overruled. 
- 12 - 

¶ 64 Standard of Review 

¶ 65 Before considering whether the defendant made such a showing, we must address the 

parties’ dispute over the standard of review to be applied to a trial court’s ruling on a 

defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing. This court has not had occasion to specifically 

identify the standard of review, although the appellate court has stated that the abuse of 

discretion standard is appropriate. Caro, 381 Ill. App. 3d at 1062; Gorosteata, 374 Ill. App. 3d 

at 212. The State argues that this court should expressly hold that the abuse of discretion 

standard applies. 

¶ 66 The defendant responds that the first stage of the Franks process, in which the court 

determines whether a full Franks hearing is warranted, is a “pleadings-based inquiry” and that 

because the trial court is in no better position than a reviewing court to evaluate the sufficiency 

of the allegations, no deference to the trial court is required. He compares this inquiry to the 

first stage of postconviction proceedings, in which the trial court determines whether the 

allegations raised in the postconviction petition are frivolous and patently without merit, a 

legal determination not afforded any deference on review. See People v. Hodges, 234 Ill. 2d 1, 

9 (2009). The defendant also argues that some federal circuits apply de novo review to a district 

court’s denial of a request for a Franks hearing. See, e.g., United States v. Ritter, 752 F.2d 435, 

439 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The decision to hold a Franks hearing is a determination about the legal 

sufficiency of a set of allegations ***. This decision should be reviewed de novo.”); United 

States v. Mueller, 902 F.2d 336, 341 (5th Cir. 1990) (“The denial of a Franks hearing is 

reviewed de novo.”).

¶ 67 The State disputes this assertion, stating that none of these courts apply a “true de novo

standard of review” that gives no deference at all to the trial court. The State is correct only in 

the sense that these courts distinguish between review of the any factual findings for clear error 

and de novo review of the court’s ultimate ruling on the sufficiency of the Franks motion. See, 

e.g., People v. Allen, 631 F.3d 164, 171 (4th Cir. 2011) (“We assess de novo the legal 

determinations underlying a district court’s suppression rulings, including the denial of a 

Franks hearing, and we review the court’s factual findings relating to such rulings for clear 

error.”); United States v. Graham, 275 F.3d 490, 505 (6th Cir. 2001) (“We review the district 

court’s denial of a Franks hearing under the same standard as for the denial of a motion to 

suppress: the district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error and its conclusions of 

law are reviewed de novo.”). However, the State goes further, arguing that the clear error 

standard of review is “very similar” to the highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.

¶ 68 We reject the notion that clear error review is indistinguishable from review for abuse of 

discretion. As we have noted, review for clear error review applies to findings of historical fact 

and gives due weight to any inferences drawn from those facts by the fact finder, warranting 

reversal only when those findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. 

Luedemann, 222 Ill. 2d 530, 542 (2006). This stands in sharp contrast to the requirement that 

an abuse of discretion will be found only when the trial court’s decision was “arbitrary, 

fanciful or unreasonable or where no reasonable man would take the view adopted by the trial 

court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Santos, 211 Ill. 2d 395, 401 (2004). 

¶ 69 In the present case, the appellate court reviewed the trial court’s ruling for abuse of 

discretion, relying on certain language in our opinion in Lucente, where we said that given the 

presumption of validity with respect to an affidavit supporting a search warrant, “[s]o long as
- 13 - 

the trial court’s judgment is exercised within permissible limits, that judgment will not be 

disturbed.” Lucente, 116 Ill. 2d at 153. The State characterizes this comment in Lucente as 

implicitly settling the question of the proper standard of review and invokes the doctrine of 

stare decisis to state that this question is settled law under this court’s precedents. The State 

also suggests that this court’s mention of the “unavoidably subjective nature” of “these 

determinations” (id.), was an indication of our approval of a deferential standard of review.

¶ 70 Lucente came to this court in a different procedural posture: the trial court had granted the 

defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing and after that hearing quashed the warrant and 

suppressed the evidence. Id. at 139. This court affirmed, finding that the decision to quash the 

warrant and suppress evidence was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. at 155. 

Prior to reaching this issue, however, this court addressed the State’s threshold argument that 

the trial court erred by allowing the Franks hearing because the defendant had not made the 

“substantial preliminary showing” required by Franks.

¶ 71 While this court did not invoke a particular standard of review, it did discuss the nature of 

the inquiry. First, the trial court must give effect to the presumption of validity of the search 

warrant. Id. at 147. Second, the motion must allege deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard 

for the truth, and these allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. Id. “Affidavits or 

sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence 

satisfactorily explained.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 148. This type of 

assessment of the adequacy of the motion does not require an exercise of discretion. 

¶ 72 This court also noted the purpose of the substantial preliminary showing requirement: “to 

discourage abuse of the hearing process and to enable spurious claims to ‘wash out at an early 

stage.’ ” Id. at 151 (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 170). This threshold standard of a 

“substantial” showing requires something more than mere denial but something less than a 

preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 152. Again, determining whether a motion and the 

accompanying offer of proof reach this level is not a discretionary determination. 

¶ 73 We did say in Lucente that the decision as to whether there has been a substantial 

preliminary showing “must be made by the trial judge, and to a degree the decision on the issue 

will be final” (id. at 152 (citing McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 308-13 (1967))), and this 

statement could be read to suggest a degree of deference to the trial court’s ruling on a motion 

for a Franks hearing. McCray, however, was decided in 1967—11 years before Franks—so it 

could not have been speaking to the issue of whether a defendant seeking a Franks hearing has 

made a substantial preliminary showing. 

¶ 74 Our prior decisions have neither implicitly nor explicitly stated the standard of review of a 

trial court’s determination of whether a defendant has made a substantial preliminary showing 

in his motion for a Franks hearing and accompanying documents. To resolve this open 

question, we must examine the nature of the Franks inquiry to determine whether a ruling on 

the motion is a matter of judicial discretion, a factual determination, or an application of the 

law. 

¶ 75 Review for abuse of discretion is proper when the trial court is called upon to exercise its 

equitable powers (Seymour v. Collins, 2015 IL 118432, ¶ 41), or when it must, for lack of a 

better phrase, make a judgment call. As we have recently observed, “we review a trial court’s 

exercise of discretion for abuse of discretion.” Id. ¶ 48. Thus, because the admissibility of 

evidence rests within the discretion of the trial court, its decision will not be disturbed absent 
- 14 - 

an abuse of that discretion. People v. Becker, 239 Ill. 2d 215, 234 (2010). Similarly, the extent 

of cross-examination with respect to an appropriate subject of inquiry rests in the sound 

discretion of the trial court. Only in the case of a clear abuse of discretion, resulting in manifest 

prejudice to the defendant, will a reviewing court interfere. People v. Stevens, 2014 IL 116300, 

¶ 16. In these contexts, the trial court’s familiarity with the facts and circumstances of the case 

and the progress of the litigation give it particular insight into the admissibility of evidence or 

the scope of permissible cross-examination. A motion for a Franks hearing does not require the 

trial court to draw upon any particular familiarity with the case. Instead, the motion asks the 

trial court to assess the sufficiency of the allegations in the motion, giving effect to a 

presumption of validity that attaches to a warrant affidavit. People v. Petrenko, 237 Ill. 2d 490, 

499 (2010). We conclude that the court’s ruling on a motion for a Franks hearing is not a 

matter of judicial discretion comparable to the admissibility of evidence or the scope of 

cross-examination. 

¶ 76 We also reject the manifest weight of the evidence standard and the clearly erroneous 

standard for review of this question. In criminal cases, these standards are applied in limited 

circumstances. Due to the trial court’s “pivotal role in the evaluation process,” its ultimate 

conclusion on a claim of racial bias in jury selection under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 

(1986), will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous. People v. Davis, 233 Ill. 2d 244, 

261-62 (2009). We apply the manifest weight of the evidence standard to certain factual 

determinations of the trial court. Specifically, we review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to 

suppress under a two-part standard: the trial court’s factual findings will be reversed only if 

they are against the manifest weight of the evidence, but the trial court’s ultimate ruling on 

whether suppression is warranted is reviewed de novo. People v. Gaytan, 2015 IL 116223, 

¶ 18. 

¶ 77 Thus, in People v. Stewart, 105 Ill. 2d 22 (1984), this court reviewed the trial court’s ruling 

on a motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant. Id. at 41. The 

defendant had been afforded a Franks hearing on his claim of improper police conduct in 

obtaining the warrant. Id. at 40. The evidence at the Franks hearing showed that while there 

were a number of incorrect statements in the warrant affidavit, no evidence showed that they 

were inserted to deceive the magistrate or were the product of reckless disregard for the truth. 

Id. at 41. Thus, denial of the suppression motion was affirmed under the manifest error 

standard. Id. at 42. 

¶ 78 We conclude that while the manifest weight of the evidence standard is applicable when 

reviewing the trial court’s ruling on the merits after a full Franks hearing, the same court’s 

ruling on the threshold question of whether to hold an evidentiary hearing invites review under 

a less deferential standard. 

¶ 79 We, therefore, hold that review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a Franks hearing is 

subject to de novo review. A reviewing court is as capable as the trial court of determining 

whether the motion and supporting documents have made a substantial preliminary showing. 

¶ 80 Application to the Facts of the Present Case 

¶ 81 The specific question that we must address is whether defendant made a substantial 

preliminary showing that a false statement was intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly 

included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. The guilt or 
- 15 - 

innocence of the defendant is not relevant to this question. See Lucente, 116 Ill. 2d at 153. 

Thus, it is irrelevant that the officer’s suspicions about the presence of guns and drugs at the 

Parkside address turned out to be well-founded. 

¶ 82 The State argues that defendant’s first motion was properly denied because the alleged 

misstatements therein were all satisfactorily explained. The nonexistent address in the warrant 

complaint was due to two typographical errors. Officer DeBois’s three-day tenure as a 

Markham police officer did not necessarily contradict his claim of a three-month investigation 

of the defendant because he had previously been a police officer in the neighboring suburb of 

Harvey, Illinois. Finally, the alibi affidavits from defendant, his family members, and a family 

friend were self-serving and not entitled to consideration. 

¶ 83 We agree that the affidavits were “self-serving” in the sense that they were provided by 

friends and family members for defendant’s benefit. Indeed, any affidavit provided in support 

of a motion for a Franks hearing will be self-serving because a defendant is highly unlikely to 

submit an affidavit that undermines his position. Further, the mere fact that an affidavit serves 

the defendant’s interests does not render it inherently incredible.

¶ 84 Thus, in Lucente, this court rejected the State’s argument that the trial court had erred by 

allowing a Franks hearing. The defendant submitted three affidavits—his own, his wife’s, and 

his sister’s—all of which stated that he was with them at a family gathering at the sister’s 

apartment during the time of the alleged drug sale. Id. at 154. “Furthermore,” this court 

observed, all three affidavits were “sufficiently detailed so as to subject the affiants to the 

penalties of perjury if they [were] untrue.” Id. Because the defendant’s allegations of 

intentional falsehoods in the warrant affidavit were supported by “such sworn corroboration,” 

the defendant’s preliminary showing was more than a “mere denial” of guilt, and an 

evidentiary hearing was warranted. Id. 

¶ 85 However, we need not consider whether defendant’s first two motions were properly 

denied by the trial court, because we conclude that the third motion, taken together with the 

alibi affidavits, meets the standard of a substantial preliminary showing. 

¶ 86 As an initial matter, we note the unusual facts of this case. In his warrant affidavit, the 

officer stated that the informant had been arrested during a traffic stop that occurred at a 

specific location at a specific time. The police report of the traffic stop identifies three people 

who were in the car that was stopped by the Markham police on Cherry Lane that afternoon: 

Aaron Lindsey, Miles Copeland, and Jeron Cotton. Defendant, in his third Franks motion, was 

not seeking to learn the identity of the confidential informant. He had already narrowed the 

possibilities to these three persons and had eliminated Lindsey from consideration. 

¶ 87 Copeland has sworn that he was the confidential informant who accompanied Officer 

DeBois to the warrant hearing and that he perjured himself by signing an affidavit he knew to 

be false. He explains his conduct as being the result of threats and coercion by Officer DeBois. 

He has admitted that he obtained the marijuana not by purchasing it from defendant, but by 

committing an armed robbery. 

¶ 88 The State attempts to discount the Copeland affidavit, noting that it has not acknowledged 

that Copeland was the confidential informant and that his identity “cannot be independently 

established in the record.” This, of course, is the nature of the confidential informant—his 

identity is deliberately omitted from the record. The State would have us create a catch-22 so 

that even if the informant comes forward with evidence that would justify a Franks hearing, 
- 16 - 

the State would be able to defeat the motion by refusing to acknowledge that he is the 

informant. We reject this approach. If the informant has self-identified and the defendant has 

otherwise sufficiently alleged intentional, knowing, or reckless falsehoods in his Franks 

motion, whether this individual was the actual informant can be ascertained at an evidentiary 

hearing. 

¶ 89 The State also points to the Lindsey affidavit and the second motion for a Franks hearing to 

suggest that the Copeland affidavit should be given no weight because of the inconsistencies 

between the two. We need not speculate as to why Lindsey falsely stated that he had purchased 

the marijuana at school rather than admitting that he had been a party to an armed robbery or 

why he might have believed that he was falsely identified by the officer as an informant after 

he was arrested in his mother’s car, with his stepfather’s gun, and he claimed ownership of the 

marijuana. Any explanations of his involvement can be elicited at the Franks hearing where he 

can be cross-examined by the State. 

¶ 90 We are similarly unpersuaded by the State’s urging that we defer to the “neutral and 

detached magistrate’s determination” of probable cause for two reasons. First, we are not 

reviewing the decision of the issuing judge, and second, we will not adopt a rule that would 

shield a police officer’s intentional, knowing, or reckless misleading of the magistrate.

¶ 91 We conclude that the Copeland affidavit, which includes several inculpatory admissions, 

taken together with the affidavits of four individuals who swear to have been with defendant at 

a different location during the day of the alleged sale, overcome the presumption of validity 

generally afforded a sworn warrant affidavit. 

¶ 92 In Franks, the Supreme Court stated that the presumption of validity will be overcome and 

an evidentiary hearing will be justified if several conditions are met. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. 

First, “the challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more 

than a mere desire to cross-examine.” Id. Defendant in the present case did more than merely 

assert his entitlement to a Franks hearing. Second, “[t]here must be allegations of deliberate 

falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth.” Id. Defendant has alleged police coercion to 

obtain false statements for inclusion in the warrant affidavit. Third, “those allegations must be 

accompanied by an offer of proof” and must “point out specifically the portion of the warrant 

affidavit that is claimed to be false.” Id. The Copeland affidavit meets this requirement. 

Finally, the defendant must furnish “[a]ffidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of 

witnesses.” Id. Defendant has done so by providing affidavits from several alibi witnesses and 

from the confidential informant. 

¶ 93 When these requirements are met, the next step is for the court to examine the warrant 

affidavit, setting aside the allegedly false or reckless statements, to determine whether 

sufficient content remains to support a finding of probable cause. Id. at 172. In the present case, 

if the statement of the confidential informant is disregarded, all that remains of the warrant 

affidavit is the officer’s suspicions that illicit drug sales and gun possession were occurring at a 

particular address. This would not meet the probable cause standard. When, as here, the 

remaining content of the warrant affidavit is not sufficient to support probable cause, the 

defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing. Id. 
- 17 - 

¶ 94 We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the appellate court. Defendant has made a substantial 

preliminary showing that entitles him to a Franks hearing, at which he, DeBois,3 Copeland, 

and other witnesses can testify under oath, be cross-examined, and have their credibility 

assessed by the trial court. 

¶ 95 CONCLUSION 

¶ 96 In sum, we hold that a Franks hearing is not foreclosed on the sole basis that a confidential 

informant whose statements formed the basis for a warrant application appears before the 

judge at the warrant hearing. We further hold that appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a 

motion for a Franks hearing is de novo. Finally, we find that the defendant made a substantial 

preliminary showing that a false statement was intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly 

included in the warrant affidavit, and he is, therefore, entitled to a Franks hearing to determine 

whether the warrant must be quashed and the evidence obtained thereby suppressed. 

¶ 97 Appellate court judgment affirmed. 

¶ 98 Circuit court judgment reversed. 

 

3We decline the defendant’s request that we take judicial notice of several cases in which Officer 

DeBois has been sued for fourth amendment violations and of his imprisonment after pleading guilty to 

lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding a sexual assault on a woman in police custody. 

Although these facts are a matter of public record, and we may take judicial notice of matters that are 

readily verifiable from sources of indisputable accuracy (People v. Mata, 217 Ill. 2d 535, 539 (2005)), 

this information would not have been available to the trial court when it ruled on defendant’s motions 

for a Franks hearing and, as such, is not relevant to the issues raised in this appeal. Any after-acquired 

evidence relevant to the officer’s credibility may be offered by the defendant at the Franks hearing.