FOURTH DIVISION Apri l 3, 2008 No. 1-07- 0271 THE PEOPLE OF

THE STATE OF

ILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the

) Ci rcu it Court of Pl ai n tif f -A pp el l an t, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 05 CR 1664 ) RAUL CARO, ) Ho no r ab le ) Henry R. Si

mm ons, Defe ndan t-Appell ee. ) Judge Presi din g. JU STI CE O' BR IEN de l iv ered th e op in i on

of th e c our t: Def en dan t, Raul Caro, wa s ch

arged wi th one coun t of un l awf ul use of a weap on. A

f ter a hearin g, t he ci rcuit cou rt g ranted defendant's motion to quash the search warrant and suppress
ev i de nc e p urs ua

nt to Fra nks v. D elawar

e , 438 U .S. 154, 5 7 L. Ed . 2d 667 , 98 S. C t. 2674 (19 78). T he St at e a pp ea ls. We affir m. On De ce mbe r22 , 20 04 , Offic er Fe de r ico And av er de su bmit t ed a c o mpla int an d a ffida vit f or a s ea rch wa rra nt to th e c i rcuit court. In

the com plai nt, Of f i ce r A ndaverd e s tate d th at on Dec ember 2 2, 200 4, he had a co nver sat ion wit h a Jo hn Do e who re late d t o him t hat defend ant
sell s c oca ine to m em be rs of the Spa ni sh Cob ras street g an

g. J ohn Doe al so rel ate d th at on Dec ember 2 1, 200 4, he we nt t o t he bas ement apa rt ment a t 140 1 N. Hamlin Avenue, wher e he
wa s m et a t the door b y de f en da nt a nd al l owe d i nto th e a pa rtm en t. Joh n D oe had

a c onv ers ati on wit h defend ant co ncer ning t he pu rc hase of so me co caine. Afte r t he co nver sat ion, defend ant wal ked i nto a front bedroom and then returned shortly

afterwards wi

th a la rge cle ar plastic ba

g that con taine d ove

r 200 s mal

l er pl asti c b ags , eac h c ontai

ni ng a wh ite powder substanc e.No. 1-07- 0271

-2-

Defe ndan t reached i

nto t he b ag and ran

doml y rem oved three of the sm

al le r bags of wh

ite powder subs t ance and ha nded t hem to Jo hn Do e in excha nge fo r $ 30. Jo hn Do e left t he ap ar t ment, went t o a different loca t ion, and s nor t ed t he co nt ent s o f one of t hos e bag s. J ohn D oe re po rt ed t hat he received "the s am

e hi gh" as h e previ ously received f

rom snortin

g cocain e. The com pl ai nt f urthe r stated that Of

f i cer A nda ve rde ra n de f en dan t's n am e i n th e Sec retary of State's database, reveal in g that defenda

nt had three ve

hi cles regi stered in

hi s nam e at 1401 N. Ha m l in A ve nue. O f f i ce r A ndaverd e s how ed a p hotog raph of de f en da nt to John Doe , an d D oe ident ifi ed d efenda nt as t he pe rso n who had s old him the co caine o n Dec ember 2 1, 200 4, fro m the basem ent apartmen

t located at 1401 N. Haml in Avenue. Of

fi cer An daverde b rought Do e to 1401 N. Hamlin Avenue a nd Do e st at ed, "t hat is wher e I bou ght my [c]o caine fr om yest er day and have been bu ying coc aine fro m for a t least t he pa st t wo mont hs." Officer And aver de w alked up t o t he bui ldi ng at 1401 N. Haml

in Avenue an

d observed def

endan t's nam e on the door. He al so stat ed t ha t he o bse r ve d o ne o f de fen da nt 's r eg ist er ed ve hic les pa r ke d ju st so ut h o f 14 01 N. Ha mlin Avenue. On Dece m be r 22, 20 04, Of

f i cersAn daverde a nd A nge l Am ador brough

t John Doe b ef ore Jud ge B iebel. Ju dge Biebel inte rview ed J ohn D oe for app ro ximately 10 minut es r ega rd ing t he tru th f ul n es s of th e f ac ts c ontai

n ed wi thin th e s ea rc h wa rra n t an d th en sw ore Joh n Doe to the f ac ts
co nt ain ed wit hin t he se ar ch wa r r an t . Ju dg e B ieb el is su ed t he se ar ch wa r r an t at ap pr o ximat ely 5:20 p.m. on Decem

ber 22, 2004. The search

al legedl y recove red a shotgun wi

th a barrel

me asuri ng l ess than 18 in ches, an d de f en da nt w as charg ed

wi th u nl aw f ul us e of a w ea pon wi th r eg ard the reto. De f en da nt w as notNo. 1-07- 0271

-3-

in dicted for any drug-related o ff enses. On Ja nu ary 18, 200 6, def

en da nt f il ed a m oti on to supp

res s evi de nc e p urs ua

nt to Franks
. In su ppo rt , d efenda nt included his ow n affidavit a nd t hos e o f his two ro ommat es. In d efenda nt 's aff ida vi t, he stated t hat he had l

iv ed at 1401 N. Haml

in Avenue f or appro xi

ma tely 14 ye ars. He
wa s em pl oy ed by Cu ri al Ma na ge m en t as an ap artm en t man ag er a

nd ha d b ee n s o em

pl oy ed f or several ye ars; h e al so renovated bui

ldi ngs. Hi s roomma

tes were hi s brother, David Caro, and a fri end, Pedro Santiago. Defen dant stated t hat on Decem ber 20, 2004, he wen

t t o sleep at app ro ximately 10 p .m. His ro ommat es a lso w er e pr ese nt in the a par t ment t hat night and no one el se cam e i nto t he apartme

nt that eveni

ng. He woke up for work the next m ornin g, Decem ber 21, 2004, at 6:30 a.m. and l

eft the apartmen

t at appr oxim

ately 7 a.m. He wen

t t o a buildi

ng at 3960 W. Gr an d A ve nu e, wh er e h e w o r ke d t ha t da y inst alling dr ywa ll. H e w en t ho me a t ap pr o ximat ely 7: 30 p .m. His ro ommat es w er e ho me when he ar rived , he at e dinner , w at ched t elevision, and went to bed. Defenda

nt stated t hat no one cam e to his apartm

ent on the ni

ght of Decem

ber 21, 200 4. Defend ant denied t hat he so ld co caine o r a ny narco t ics t o a nyone in his ap ar t ment o r a t any ot her location on December 21, 2004. He st ated t hat he never sold or used narco tics. Defe ndan t's brother, David Caro, stat ed i n hi s af fi davi t t hat he l iv ed i n the apartme

nt at 1401 N. Haml

in Avenue f or 12 years. He was a m

achi ne operator for Ol

ym pic Oil , and had b

een emp lo yed t he r e fo r17 yea r s. He st at ed t ha t o n D ec emb er 20 , 20 04 , he we nt t o be d in t he ea r ly
ev en ing a nd that no on e ca

m e i nto the a partm en t exc ept f or def en dan t and the othe r roomm ate. He woke up for work at 3:30 a.m. on Decem ber 21, 2004, and l

eft the apartmen

t at 4 a. m. He
wo r ke d u nt il 1: 30 p. m. an d a r r ive d b ac k t o an emp t y ap ar t men t at ap pr o ximat ely 2 p. m. HisNo. 1-07- 0271

-4-

roo mm ate, Pedro Santiago, arriv ed hom e at approxim

ately 4 p.m., and the two of them cooked dinner and w at ched t elevision u nt il appr oximat ely 7 or 7: 30 p .m. , w hen Da vid went t o be d. At approxim ately 8 p.m., he h

eard defe ndan t enter t he apartme

nt, watch some tel

evi sion, and then go to bed. Davi

d stated t hat whi

le he was i n the apartme

nt on Decem

ber 21, 2004, he di

d not see defen dant or anyone

el se sel l c ocain e to anyone. Other than de fen dant and Pedro, he did not see any one el se i n the apartme

nt on Decem

ber 21, 2004. He further stated that prior to Decem ber 21 , 20 04 , he ha d n ev er se en de fen da nt us e o rse ll co ca ine o ro t he rdr ug s t o an yo ne in t he ir apa rt ment o r a t any ot her loca t ion. Pe dr o Sa nt iag o st at ed in his affid av it t ha t he ha d liv ed in t he ap ar t men t at 14 01 N. Ha mlin Avenue f or 14 years. He was a l

aborer for Lakewood Company , a fan ma nuf acturer, and had been e mployed t her e fo r 1 7 year s. P edr o s t at ed t hat on t he eve ning o f Dece mber 2 0, 200 4, he and h is roo mm ates were alone

in the apartmen

t. He went t o bed that eveni ng an d woke at 6:15
a.m . the f oll owing day

f or work. He l

ef t for work a

t 6:45 a.m

. an d return

ed h ome at 4 p.m
. Davi d Caro was present when he arri ved h ome. Pedro and Davi

d ma de di nne r and watched tel ev i si on . Pe dr o st ate d that def en da n t ca m e i n to the a pa rtm en t ash e w asgetti

n g rea dy to go to bed. Ped ro st at ed t hat no o ne, ot her t han his t wo ro ommat es, was pr ese nt wit h him i n t he apartm en t on Dec em

be r 21, 20 04. W

hi l e he was in th e apa rtme nt on D ecem

be r 21, 20 04, Ped

ro di d n ot s ee de f en da n t or a n y on e el se

sell coc ai n e to a n y on e. He

also state d th

at pri or to De ce mbe r21 , 20 04 , he ha d n ev er se en de fen da nt us e o rse ll co ca ine o ro t he rdr ug s t o an yo ne in t heir ap ar t ment o r a t any ot her loca t ion. On May 4, 2006, t he ci

rcuit court granted defendan t's request for a Franks

hear ing. At t heNo. 1-07- 0271

-5-

hear ing, t he fo llowing evid ence was add uce d. On De cember 22, 200 4, Officers Andave rd e and Am ador had a conversati

on with a John Doe i

nf ormant, who was ref

erred to them b

y other poli

ce of f i ce rs . Neithe

r Of f i ce r A ndaverd e nor Of f i ce r A mad or h ad

ever w orke d w ith th

e J ohn Doe in form ant bef ore. Jo hn D oe in

form ed the off ic ers that on the previ ous day, Decem ber 21, 2004, he pu rc hase d t hre e bag s o f narc ot ics fro m defenda nt . Jo hn Do e t old t he o ffi cer s t hat defend ant had a larg e kno t t ed ba g co nt aining 200 smaller pa cke t s o f co caine. Jo hn Do e pr ovid ed t he officer s wit h defend ant 's name, add re ss, and d esc ript ion. To verify the inf ormation given

by the John Doe, Off

icer An daverde went t o t he address provided an

d saw that the nam

e on the doorbell

ma tched def endan t's nam e. The parties s tipulated th at th e of f i ce rs di d n ot co n du ct a

con trol l ed b uy , s ur v ei ll an ce or a n y f ur th er in v es ti ga ti on asto narcotics sa

le s at 1401 N. Haml

in Avenue. On Decem

ber 22, 2004, Off

ic er Anda verde took Jo hn D oe to the address at 1401 N. Ham li n A ven ue, where he i

dentif ied it as the h

ouse where he h

ad purchased n

arcotics. The off

ic er also o b tai n ed a p h otograp h

of de f en da n t f rom th e S ecre tar

y of Sta te' s d ata b as e a n d s h owe d i

t to John Doe. The c om pl ai n t f or s ea rc h wa rra n t in cl ud ed de f en da n t' s n am e, ag e, da te of b i rth , hei gh t, weight , e ye co lor , ha ir co lor , c omp lexion, so cial secu rit y number and dr iver's licens e number . T he off ic ers stated t hat they

le arned the n am

e, hei ght, weigh

t and phy sical

descri ption f rom John D oe, an d th at th ey obta ined the s ocial

se curi ty nu m be r, d ri ve r' s l ice ns e n um be r an d da te of bi rth f rom the Secretary of State's database
. Officer And aver de s t at ed t hat on D ece mber 2 2, 200 4, he and Officer Amad or bro ughtNo. 1-07- 0271

-6-

John Doe bef

ore Judge Bieb

el . Judge Biebel

in terviewed John Doe f

or appro xi

ma tely 10 mi nutes
re gar ding t he t ru t hfulness o f the fact s co nt ained w ithin t he se ar ch wa rr ant , a nd sw or e him to t he fact s co nt ained w ithin t he se ar ch wa rr ant . Ju dge Biebel t her eaft er gr ant ed t he wa rr ant . T he
co mmon law r eco rd re veals t hat on D ece mber 2 2, 200 4, t he o ffi cer s exe cut ed t he wa rr ant at t he basem ent apartmen

t at 1401 N. Ham

li n A ven ue.. From the apartmen

t, t he pol ic e recovered a shotgu n wi

th a barrel m

easuring l ess than 18 in

ches. Defe ndan t's brother, David Caro, t estif ied that he l

iv es at 1401 N. Haml

in Avenue. He stated t hat on Decem

ber 21, 2004, he woke up at 3:30 a.m. and l eft f or wo rk at 4 a.m. He testi f i ed th at be

tween the ti m e he woke u

p an d l ef t for work, n

obody cam e to the ap artm

en t. Wh en h e left f or wo rk, defen

dant was still

in the apartmen

t. When Da

vi d arrived hom

e at ap pr o ximat ely 2 p. m. , no bo dy e lse wa s t he r e. Pe dr o ar r ive d h o me a t ap pr o ximat ely 4 p. m. Da vid and P edr o a t e dinner and w at ched t elevision. David w ent t o s leep a t 7 p. m. He hear d de fendant
co me home a t app ro ximately 7 o r 7 :3 0 p. m. and did no t hear anyone else co me into t he ap ar t ment that eveni ng. He di d not see defen

dant sel li ng drugs to any one i

n the apartme

nt on Decem

ber 21, 2004, and he has never known defen dant t o sell

drugs. Pedro Sa ntiago testi

f i ed th at he

ha d been l ivi ng a t 1401 N. H am

l in A venue f or 14 y ears . On Decem

ber 21, 2004, he woke up at 6 a.m. and l eft f or wo rk at 6:30 a.m. He arriv ed hom e at ap pr o ximat ely 4 :3 0 p
. m. Da vid Ca r o wa s in t he ap ar t men t wh en he ar r ive d h o me. He an d D av id
ma de somethi

ng to eat. Davi

d went to bed at appro xi

ma tely 7:15 p.m. and Pedro went to bed at ap prox imate l y 8 p. m . Pe dro h

ea rd def en da nt a rri ve hom e a t ap prox imate l y 8 p. m . an d di d not h ea r a n y on e el se

en ter th e a pa rtm en t th at ev en

in g. He d i d n ot s ee de f en da n t se ll in g d ru gstoNo. 1-07- 0271

-7-

anyone in the apartment on December 21, 2004, and he has n ever known defendan

t t o sell drugs. De fen da nt t es t ified t ha t he ha d b ee n living in t he ba se men t ap ar t men t at 14 01 N. Ha mlin Av en ue f or 14 y ears . He tes tif

i ed th at when

he woke up on De cem

be r 21, 20 04, at 6:3 0 a.m ., b oth of h i s room mate s w ere g on e. He

l ef t th e a pa rtm en t at a pp rox imatel y 6: 45 a. m . a

n d w en t to work at 3960 W. Grand A ven ue, where he w as doin

g remodel in g work for an atto rney

nam ed Basil Anagno s. H e finished wo rk ing at 7: 45 p .m. and r et ur ned ho me at 8 p. m. When d efenda nt arrived hom

e, both hi s roomma

tes already

were in bed. Def endan t stat ed that nobody else arriv ed at the apartment that nigh t and that he has n

ever sold drugs to anyone. The part ies sti

pulated that Basil

Anagnos i s an atto rney l

icen sed to pract ice l

aw in Ill in ois,
an d he al so dev el ops prope rty. M r. An agnos owned the

property at 3960 W. G rand Avenue . Duri ng the we ek of De ce m be r 20 , 20 04, de f

en da nt w as doi

ng dry wa ll work the re. Mr . Ana

gnos periodi cal ly stopped by the prem

is es to check on the progress of the work. On Decem ber 21, 2004, he stopped at 3960 W. Grand Avenue i n the m ornin g hours and saw de

fen dant and an

ot her worker th ere pu ttin g up dr ywal l . Mr. A na gnosstay ed f or approx imatel y 15 m inute s an d then l ef t. Mr. Anagn

os had known def

endan t for 12 years, h

ired h im on ma ny occasions , and nev

er knew hi m to use, sell or possess any type of i ll egal drugs. A f ter th e c on cl us i on of al l th e ev i den ce , the c i

rc ui t cou rt g ra n ted de f en da n t' s m oti on to quash the s earch warrant an d suppress ev

ide nce. The State fi

led a m ot ion to reconsi der, which t he cir cu it co ur t de nie d. T he St at e file d t his t imely a pp ea l. The State cont ends that the trial court erred in

grantin g defen dant a Franks

hear ing and quashi ng the search

warrant and suppress in

g evi dence. The f

ourt h am endm ent to t he Un

itedNo. 1-07- 0271

-8-

St at es Co nst itu t ion g uar ant ees t he r ight t o be free fro m unre aso nable sea rc h and s eizur e. The
am en dm en t sta tes tha t "n o W arran ts s ha ll i ss ue , b ut up on p

rob abl e c au se , su

ppor ted by Oa th or affirmatio n, a nd pa rt icular ly descr ibing the place t o be sea rc hed, and t he pe rso ns o r t hings t o be seized ." U. S. Co nst ., amend I V. The Illinois Co nst itu t ion similarly pro vides t hat "[n] o w ar ra nt shall issue w itho ut pr oba ble cau se, sup po rt ed by affidavit par t icular ly descr ibing the place t o be searched a

nd the persons or thi

ngs to be sei

zed." Ill . Const. 1970, art . 1, §6. A "deta ch ed j udi ci al of f i ce r" re sol v esth e q ue sti on of wh eth er pr ob abl e c au se

ex i sts j usti f ying th e i ssu ance of

a war ran t. People v . Tisl

er , 10 3 I ll. 2 d 2 26 , 23 6 ( 19 84 )
. T he de cis io n is ba sed on the inf orma tion contai ne d i n s worn s tatem

en ts or af f i dav its pres en ted to the m

agi strate. Tisl er , 1 03 I ll. 2d a t 236 . Whe t her pr oba ble cau se e xists dep ends on t he t ot ality o f the ci rcum stan cesknow n to the of

f i cersan d court at the

tim e the warra nt i s sought. Tisl

er , 10 3 I ll. 2d at 236. Pri or to Franks , attackson wa rran t af f i dav its were precl uded
. Pe opl

e v . L uc en te , 11 6 I ll. 2d 1 33, 146 (1 987 ). In Franks , the Un ited Sta tesSuprem

e C our t re cog n i ze d a

l im ited ri gh t to attack the ve rac ity of a w arran t af f i da vi t. Th e C ourt h el d th at to ov erc om

e th e presum pti on of val idi ty that att aches to a warrant aff ida vi t and obtain

a Franks hearin g, defendant must make "a
su b sta n ti al prel im in ar y sh owi n g that a f alse sta tem en t kn owi n gl y an d i n ten ti on al l y , or with
re ckles s disr ega rd for t he t ru t h, w as includ ed by t he affiant in the w ar ra nt affidavit" and t hat "t he all egedly fal se stat emen

t is necessary

to the fi ndi ng of probable cause." Franks , 438 U.S. at 155- 56, 57 L. Ed. 2d at 672, 98 S. Ct. at 2676. Defendan t makes a " substantial

preli mi nary showi ng" wh en he o ffe r s p r o o f t ha t is " so mew he r e b et we en mer e d en ials o n t he o ne ha nd an d p r o o f by aNo. 1-07- 0271

-9-

prepo nderance on the ot her." Lu cen te , 116 Il l . 2d at 15 2. The

determ ina tion of whe ther a defen dant ma de the neces sary

showi ng to warrant a Franks

hear ing is within t he disc re t ion o f the ci rcui t court and

wi ll not be di sturb ed ab sen

t an a bus e of di scre tion
. Pe opl

e v . G oros tea

ta , 374 Il l . App. 3d 20 3, 212 ( 2007)
. Th e i nstan t ca se i s s i m il ar to Lu cen te . I n Lu cen te , a po lice officer exec ut ed a co mplaint fo ra s ea r ch wa r r an t . I n his su pp o r t ing affid av it , he st at ed t ha t an un na med info r man t ha d t o ld hi m that at approxim

ately 8:30 p.m. on the previ

ous eveni ng, the i nf ormant had gone to an apartm en t and be en adm itted ins i de by

Luc en te. Lu cen te , 11 6 I ll . 2d

at 1 39 . In

th e a pa rtm en t, the i nf orma nt purc ha sed mari j uan a. Lu cen te , 116 Il

l . 2d at 13 9. A

sea rch warra nt wa s i ssu ed. No m ari j ua na wa s f ound, b ut a noth er c ontr oll ed su bstan ce , v al i um, wa s f ound i n a bedroom dres ser. Lu cen te , 116 Ill . 2d at 140. Lu ce nte f il ed a m oti on p urs ua nt to Franks

see ki ng to qua sh

the w arran

t and the a rrest. The m otion al l eged that the off i cer' s wa rran t af f i dav it was f al se. Lu cen te , 116 Il

l . 2d at 14 0. In sup po rt , Lu cent e filed an affidavit alleging t hat he wa s no t pr ese nt at his apa rt ment d ur ing t he hours (8:30 p .m .) the i

nf orma nt stated he made th e purcha se. Lu cen te , 116 Il l . 2d at 14 0. Lu ce nt e s t at ed t ha t o n t he ev en ing in q ue st io n, he an d h is w ife w er e w it h his sis t er fr o m 6: 30 p. m. to 10 p.m
. Lu cen te , 1 16 I ll. 2d a t 140 . Lu cent e's w ife and sist er also submitt ed a ffi davit s st at ing that the y were at the s i ster' s house f

rom 6 :30 p.m

. to 10 p.m
. Lu cen te , 116 Ill . 2d at 140-41. The trial court granted a Franks

hear ing and e vent ually quas hed t he wa rr ant and supp ress ed the ev

i den ce. Lu cen te , 11 6 I ll. 2 d a t 14 1- 43
. On ap pe al b y t he St at e, t he su pr eme court aff irm ed, holdi ng:No. 1-07- 0271

-10-

"Had [Lucen

te's] proff er consi sted solel

y of hi s own af

fi davi t asserting 'I didn 't do it,' that woul d am ount to an u

ns ubstantiated de

ni al , an d tha

t woul d be

pl ai nl y ins uf f i ci en t. [ Lu ce nt e] ha s d o ne mo r e t ha n t ha t , ho we ve r . His sho win g is es se nt ially a n a libi,
an d h e h as co r r o bo r at ed t ha t alibi w it h t wo affid av it s be sid es his o wn . Fu r t he r mo r e, all [Lucente's ] aff

ida vi ts are suff icie ntly detail ed so as to subject the af

fi ants to t he penal

ties of p erj ury i f they are un true. [Ci tation s.] In

our vi ew, the pres ence of

suc h s worn corr obor ation elevates this showing ab ove the level of 'm ere denial .' " Lu cen te , 116 Ill . 2d at 153-54. The suprem

e court co ncl

uded that "[o] n ba

la nce, the sh

owing m ade was such

that t he trial judge could permi ssib

ly conclude that an evidenti ary heari ng was warranted. " Lu cen te , 116 Ill . 2d at 154. Si m il arl y , i n th e p res en t ca se , def

en da nt f il ed an af f i da vi t sta ting tha t he wa s a t work on t he da y the info rmant st at ed he made t he pu rc hase and t hat when he came ho me he at e dinner and
wa t ch ed t ele visio n a nd we nt t o be d. He de nie d s elling o rus ing an y illeg al d r ug s o n t he da y in que st ion. Defend ant 's t wo ro ommat es a lso filed affidavit s in sup po rt , st at ing t hat when d efenda nt arrived hom

e from work no o ne other than he and h is roo mm ates were present. Both ro omm ates denied see ing defend ant selling il legal dr ugs at t he ap ar t ment o n t he da y in quest ion. As in Lu cen te , d efenda nt 's sho wing wa s ess ent ially an alibi, and he co rr obo ra t ed t hat alibi with two aff

ida vi ts besi des his own. Al

l three af fi davi ts are suff icie ntly detail ed so as to subject th e a f f i an ts to th e p enal

ti esof pe rj ur y i f th ey are u n tru e. Ta

ken toge th er , the a

f f i da v its c on sti

tute a subs tantial

preli mi nary showi ng that a fal

se statemen

t im pli catin g defen dant in the drugNo. 1-07- 0271

-11-

t ra nsac t ion wa s kno wingly, inte nt ionally, o r r eck lessly included by t he o ffi cer in the w ar ra nt af f i dav i t, and that the al l eged l y f al se s tatem

en t was n ece ssa ry to the f indi ng of proba bl e ca use . Based on these a

ff ida vi ts, t he trial

court did n

ot abuse i ts discretion in

determi ni ng that a Franks heari ng was warran

ted. The State cont ends that def endan t's al ib i is unav aili

ng an d did n ot warrant a Franks he ar ing , be ca us e h is r o o mmat es co uld no t ac co un t fo rde fen da nt 's w he r ea bo ut s fr o m 6: 45 a. m. until 2 p.m., or from 8 p.m . onward. The Stat e's argum ent would h ave m

erit i f the i nf ormant had st at ed t hat t he dr ug t ra nsac t ion had oc cur re d du ring t hos e t ime per iod s. H ow ever , t he infor mant her e mere ly stat ed t hat he had pur chas ed d ru gs fr om d efenda nt on D ece mber 2 1, 200 4, but he
never provided a ti

me of day when the transaction occurred. In response, def endan t fi led an af f i da v i t sta tin g that h

e w asat w ork

al l da y on De cem b er 21 , then wen t h om

e, ate , a n d w en t to be d; his r o o mmat es pr o vid ed affid av it s c o nfir ming t ha t wh en t he y re t ur ne d h o me fr o m wo r k in the afternoon, defe

ndan t was not t here, and that def endan t came h ome n ear bed tim

e and that they saw no drug transactions . The trial court could concl

ude from al l thes e aff ida vi ts that an
ev id en t iar y Franks

hear ing was war ra nt ed. We find no a buse of d iscre t ion in t he gr ant ing o f the heari ng. The S tate argu es , thoug h , th at Pe opl e v . G oros tea

ta , 37 4 I ll. A pp . 3d 20 3 ( 20 07 ) , co mpe ls a differe nt re sult . I n Gorost ea ta , a police off

ic er fi led a compl

ai nt for the i ssuan

ce of a sea

rch
wa r r an t . I n his co mpla int , t he o ffice rav er r ed t ha t an info r man t ha d t o ld h im abo ut a n ar co t ic transaction h

e engaged i

n wi th a m an n am ed Gordo on the ev

eni ng of June 24, 2003, at 4849 S
. Honore S treet. Gorost ea ta , 374 Ill . App. 3d at 205-06. T he trial court approved the searchNo. 1-07- 0271

-12-

warrant, and a team of

poli ce executed the warrant. The off ic ers recovered m

arij uana, cocai

ne, an d bottles of

Inos itol, an

agen t used to di

l ute coca i ne . Gorostea

ta , 374 Ill . App. 3d at 206. Go ro st ea t a w as cha rg ed wit h po ss es sio n o f ca nna bis w it h int ent t o de liver and po ss es sio n o f a control l ed s ubstanc e wi

th i nten t to deli ve r. Gorostea

ta , 374 Ill . App. 3d at 206. Go rosteat a fi led
a m ot ion f or a Franks

h ea ri n g to q ua sh th e s ea rc h wa rra n t an d s up pres s ev i den ce . G oros tea ta at t ache d a nu mber o f affidavits st at ing t hat he had not enga ged in any dru g t ra nsac t ions o n t he date i n questi on. Gorost ea

ta , 374 Ill . App. 3d at 206-07. The trial court deni

ed the m ot ion f or a Franks

he ari ng. Gorostea

ta , 374 Ill . App. 3d at 20 8. O n appe al , the a

pp el l ate cou rt h el d i n pe rti n en t pa rt: "[T]h ere a ppea rs to be no di spute that [the i

nf orma nt] pe rson al l y testi f i ed b ef ore th e m ag i strate at th e ti m e O f f i ce r Sa n ch ez appl i ed f or th e s ea rc h wa rra n t. W e a gree wi th the ci rcuit court t hat the poli

ce's em ploy me nt of thi s procedure, rat her than the of fi cer m erel y pres en tin g a n d v ouc h in g f

or h i s i n f orm an t' s c l ai m s i n th e of f i ce r' s c om pl ai n t, wit hou t pr ese nt ing t he infor mant t o t he co ur t for inter ro gat ion, re moved t his case fro m the ambit o f Franks
. A number of c ou rt s have re co gnized , a s did t he circ uit co ur t , t hat , w hen a nong ove rnment al informant is per so nally brou ght befo re t he magist ra t e t o t est ify t o t he fact s t hat will esta blish pro bable ca use in a war ra nt , t he bur den o f det er mini ng t he
re liabil ity o f the informant t hen shifts t o t he co ur t and a way fro m law enfor cement personnel . *** * * *No. 1-07- 0271

-13- *** [W ]he n the i nf orma nt appears

bef ore the m agi strate, i

t is not even ne ces sary for the poli

ce to co rroborat e the i

nf ormant's account sin

ce 'the j udge i ssui

ng the search
warra nt h a[s] a n opportun

ity to *** determ

ine the b asis of

[the i nf orma nt' s] kn owledge .' [Ci tation .] Thu s, s ince [t he infor mant] app ear ed be for e t he magist ra t e t o t est ify sur ro unding the al l eg ati ons con tai ned i n th e c om plai nt f or the s ea rch wa rra nt of the se con d-f l oor ap ar t ment at 48 49 S. Ho no re , t his c as e fa lls o ut sid e t he s co pe o f Franks . The ref ore, ther e was no error o n the part of the ci rcuit court in den

yi ng [Gorost eata] a Franks

evi den tia ry hearin g." Gorost ea

ta , 374 Ill . App. 3d at 213-15. In t he pr ese nt cas e, t he St at e ar gue s t hat Jo hn Do e wa s a no ngo ver nmenta l inf or mant w ho testi f i ed b ef ore the m agi strate du

ring th e heari ng on the State 'scom

pl ai nt f or a sea rch warra nt. The re for e, t he St at e co nt ends t hat , a s in Gorostea ta , t his c as e fa lls o ut sid e t he s co pe o f Franks
. We di sagree. Gorost ea

ta is fact ually inappo site , a s t he ap pea l ther e wa s t ake n by defen dant fol lowi ng the den

ia l of a Franks h ea ri n g, w h erea s th e a pp ea l h ere i s ta ken b y th e S tate from the grantin

g of a Franks

hear ing. U nlike in Gorostea ta , t he n, t he iss ue in t he pr es en t ca se is whether the trial

court abused i

ts discretion in

grantin g the Franks

hear ing wher e t he infor mant had e ar lier t est ifi

ed be for e t he judg e issuing t he se ar ch wa rr ant . We dec line to hold t hat t he in form ant's testim

ony c ategorical

ly precluded a Franks

heari ng, especi al ly where, as h

ere, defen dant's m ot ion f or a Franks

heari ng was support ed wi

th mul tipl e aff ida vi ts in dic ating tha

t defend ant did no t enga ge in any nar co t ics t ra nsac t ions o n t he da t e in que st ion. The informant 's testim ony w as but one f

actor t o consider i

n determi ni ng wh ether to grant a Franks

hear ing; t heNo. 1-07- 0271

-14-

o t he rfac t o r s t o co nsid er , as dis cu ss ed ab o ve , we r e t he affid av it s file d b y de fen da nt an d h is
roo mm ates. We f

in d no abuse of

dis cretion i

n the trial court 's decision to grant a Franks heari ng. We re spe ct fully

disag re e wit h Gorostea

ta to the extent that its hol

din g confl icts with our
own. Gorost ea

ta held t hat when a nong ove rnment al informant t est ifi es be for e t he judg e issuing t he w ar ra nt , t he c as e fa lls o ut sid e t he s co pe o f Franks . O ur re view o f Franks indi catesotherwise. Asdi scu ssed, Franks

held t hat a de fendant may att ack t he ver acit y of a wa rr ant affidavit a nd obt ain a hea ring w hen he mak es a "su bst ant ial pre lim inary sho wing t hat a false st at ement kn o win gly a nd int en t io na lly, o rwit h r ec kle ss dis r eg ar d fo rt he t r ut h, wa s inc lud ed by t he affia nt in t he wa r r an t affid av it " a nd t ha t t he alle ge d fa lse st at eme nt wa s ne ce ss ar y t o t he find ing o f pr o ba ble
caus e. Franks , 4 38 U .S . a t 155 -5 6, 57 L . E d. 2d a t 672 , 9 8 S . C t . a t 267 6. In p ro viding for t he Franks hear ing, t he Su pr eme Co ur t not ed t hat t he fo ur t h amendment re quir es a t ru t hful show ing of probabl

e cause "i n the sen se that the in

form ation put forth is

bel ie ved or appropriately

accepted by the aff ian t as t rue." Franks , 4 38 U .S . a t 165 , 5 7 L. Ed . 2 d at 678 , 9 8 S . C t . a t 268 1. The Supreme C ourt further noted: "B ec au se it is t he mag ist r at e w ho mus t de t er mine in de pe nd en t ly whe t he rt he r e is pr o ba ble
cau se [ cita t ions] , it wo uld be a n unt hinkable impos itio n upo n his aut hor ity if a war ra nt af f i dav it, reve al ed af ter the f act to contai

n a del i be ratel y or reckl ess l y f al se s tatem

en t, were to s tan d b ey on d i m pe ac h m en t. * * * [A] fl at ban on im

peachmen t o f veracity could denude the probable-cause req ui rem en t of al l rea l m ea ni ng . Th e requi rem en t tha t a w arran

t not iss ue

'b ut up onNo. 1-07- 0271

-15-

probabl e cause, supported by Oa th or affi rmation,' would be reduced to a null ity if a poli ce off ic er was abl

e to use deli

berately fal si fi ed al legations to demonstrate probabl e cause, and, hav in g misl ed the m agi strate, then was ab

le to remai n conf ide nt that t he pl

oy was wort hwhi le." Franks , 438 U.S. at 165-68, 57 L. Ed. 2d at 678-80, 98 S. Ct . at 2681-82, quot in g U.S. Const., am

end IV. Gorost ea ta de fea t s t he p ur po se o f Franks by al lowi ng a warrant af

fi davi t, revealed af

ter the fact t o contain a del

ib erately or recklessl

y f al se statemen

t, t o stand bey

ond im peachm ent as l ong a s the

nongove rnm en tal inf orma nt testi f i ed b ef ore the j udge

i ssu ing th e se arch warra nt. Con trar y to Gorost ea

ta 'shol di ng, Franks

simply co nt ains no langua ge p re cluding a n at t ack on t he
warra nt af f i dav it when a nongove rnm en tal inf orma nt testi f i es bef ore the i ssu ing j udge
. Accordin gly, we decl

in e to foll ow Gorostea

ta here. Next , t he St at e ar gue s t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in qu ashing t he se ar ch wa rr ant and suppressi ng the ev ide nce. The rel

evan t inqui ry is whether def

endan t pro ved, by

a preponderance of the eviden

ce, t hat the affi

ant incl uded fal se stat emen

ts in the warrant affi

davi t with reckless di sreg ard of

the truth an d tha t the statem

en ts were ne ces sary

to the f indi ng of proba bl e ca use . Franks , 43 8 U .S. at 1 55 -5 6, 5 7 L . Ed . 2d at 6 72 , 98S. Ct. a

t 26 76 . W

h en re v i ew in g a

m oti on to suppress, t he trial court's factual f in din gs wil l be reversed only

if they are again st t he m

ani fest wei ght of the evi

dence; the trial

court 's rul

in g on the motion is a questi on of law that we review de novo . Pe opl

e v . M cC ar

ty , 223 Il l . 2d 109 , 148 (2 006). The evidence at t he heari

ng support s a fi

ndi ng that t he warrant affi

davi t co ntained f

alse st at ement s t hat t he affiant included wit h re ckles s disr ega rd for t he t ru t h. S pec ifi cally, t he o ffi

cer 'sNo. 1-07- 0271

-16-

af f i da vi t con tai ned the i nf orm an t's sta tem en ts to th e of f i ce rs tha t he ha d pu rch as ed dru gs f rom defend ant on D ece mber 2 1, 200 4. The t rial co ur t fou nd t hat t he infor mant's st at ement re gar ding "[t ]he ent ire co nt ent of w hat dr ugs wer e in the home" was false. The t rial co ur t 's fact ual finding was suppor ted by the aff

idav its of defen

dant and his

roo mm ates (d eny

in g any drug t ransactions) and w as no t aga inst t he manifest weight of t he evide nce. Fur t her , t he t est imony at t he hea ring
su ppor ted the tri al court' s f ind ing tha t the of f i ce rs di d not prop erl

y inv es ti ga te th e tru thf ul ne ssof t he info r man t 's a lleg at io ns. T he y did no t ch ec k t he info r man t 's b ac kg r o un d o rch ec k h is na me wi th an y oth er pol i ce un it or c on du ct a

n y su rv ei ll an ce of de f en da n t' s b ui l di n g or con du ct a
co nt ro lled buy. T he o ffi

cer s' co nduc t demo nst ra t ed t hat t hey act ed w ith r eck less disr ega rd for t he tru th or f alsi ty of th e s tate m en ts p rov i de d by th e i n f orm an t; an d th e s tate m en ts w ere n ec es sa ry to the fi ndi ng of probable

cause. Accordi

ngl y, we af fi rm the tri al

court 's order quashi

ng the search warrant and suppress in

g the evi dence. Af fi rmed. NEVIL LE, P.J ., an d CA

MPB ELL , J., con

cur.