Opinion ID: 6497731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Franks Hearing Issue

Text: Under Franks v. Delaware, the presumptive validity of a warrant affidavit must be set aside and an evidentiary hearing held: -5- 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. United States v. Kattaria, 553 F.3d 1171, 1176 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 1061 (2009). “The requirement of a substantial preliminary showing is not lightly met.” United States v. Arnold, 725 F.3d 896, 898 (8th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). The showing must be supported by reliable evidence or affidavits, not mere allegations. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. Although Randle’s motion for a Franks hearing alleged a number of material misrepresentations and omissions in Hamilton’s warrant affidavit, the magistrate judge recommended that a Franks hearing be granted only for the omission of the fact that Randle’s state driving and identification records recite that he lives at an address on Stevens Avenue in Minneapolis, not the Vera Cruz Lane address in Brooklyn Park. “This information would clearly have been critical to the issuing judge,” the magistrate judge concluded, and therefore further recommended that Randle be allowed supplemental discovery on this issue. The district court disagreed and denied Randle’s motions for discovery and a Franks hearing. Randle’s appeal focuses on the omission of the Stevens Avenue address. Where the defendant’s claim is that the affiant intentionally or recklessly omitted material information from the affidavit, “reckless disregard for the truth may be inferred . . . only when the material omitted would have been clearly critical to the finding of probable cause.” United States v. Carnahan, 684 F.3d 732, 735 (8th Cir.) (cleaned up), cert. denied, 568 U.S. 1016 (2012). Officer Hamilton testified that he was aware of records listing the Stevens Avenue address but did not believe this disclosure was relevant because in his -6- experience, people use multiple addresses for different reasons. Randle argues the magistrate judge correctly concluded that this omission was “clearly critical” because the affidavit’s probable cause showing was based on the assumption that the Vera Cruz residence was Randle’s “home” and therefore a place where a drug trafficker would store contraband. According to Randle, disclosing that state records listed a second address would have contradicted, or at least called this assumption into question, and the warrant to search the Vera Cruz residence would not have issued. We agree with the district court that neither the omission of the Stevens Avenue address nor the affidavit’s characterization of the Vera Cruz Lane address as Randle’s home satisfies the “substantial preliminary showing” needed to warrant a Franks hearing. As the district court explained: Given that at the time of the search Randle was on supervised release and was being actively supervised by the U.S. Probation Office, Randle’s address on record with the Probation Office is strong evidence of where he was living. The [Vera Cruz] Residence is where Randle’s probation officer was told to find him. The use of the word “currently” in describing Randle’s supervised release status suggests that it may be a more recent address than others on record. Although Randle may have had other residences where he occasionally stayed or received mail, the Probation Office records establish that the Residence on Vera Cruz Lane is at least one of his residences. There is no evidence that Officer Hamilton in submitting his warrant affidavit knowingly disregarded the truth to mislead the issuing judge. Even if the Stevens Avenue listings might have been of interest, “in a warrant affidavit, the government need only show facts sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.” Short, 2 F.4th at 1080 (quotation omitted). Here, the Probation Office records plus the averral that officers followed Randle to Vera Cruz Lane after the controlled buy gave Officer Hamilton reason to believe that his warrant affidavit provided facts sufficient to support a finding of probable cause that contraband would be found at that address. -7- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Randle’s motions for a Franks hearing and further discovery. Randle’s contention that the court committed “procedural error” when it held a hearing on Randle’s motion for a Franks hearing without conducting a “full” Franks hearing is without merit. Randle’s counsel had a full opportunity to cross examine Officer Hamilton at the motion hearing, but was unable to satisfy the “substantial preliminary showing” necessary to warrant grant of a Franks hearing. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ -8-