Opinion ID: 2996344
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Villa’s statements

Text: The Molinas point to Paragraph 7 of Officer Cooper’s affidavit, which relied on Villa’s recorded statement, contending that: (1) Villa’s information was stale; (2) officers Cooper and Dail coerced Villa’s testimony; (3) officers Cooper and Dail used the tape recorder to manipulate Villa’s statements; (4) Villa’s incriminating statements regarding Raul were false; and (5) officers Cooper and Dail knew the statements were false at the time they were made. We agree with the district court that “there might be some questions of fact as to whether Cooper had reasons to No. 02-1995 7 doubt the veracity of Villa’s allegations.” See Molina ex rel. Molina v. Cooper, No. 00 C 50230, 2002 WL 426035, at  (N.D.Ill. Mar. 18, 2002). Moreover, Villa’s information was not particularly timely, as his alleged dealings with Molina ended in 1995, and the warrant was not obtained until July 1998. See United States v. McNeese, 901 F.2d 585, 596-97 (7th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Westmoreland, 240 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 2001). For these reasons we agree that the district court properly disregarded Villa’s statements in determining whether probable cause existed. However, we also agree with the district court that even if Villa’s statements are totally disregarded, Ramirez’s statements and the positive field test results from the Molinas’ garbage were enough to establish probable cause. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72; Forman, 104 F.3d at 964.