Opinion ID: 1058265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Facts Adduced During the Evidentiary Hearing on the Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized Pursuant to the Execution of the Search Warrant

Text: On June 12, 2006, Henry Carmon encountered the defendant sometime during the day at a food facility operated by the Salvation Army. Carmon spoke with the defendant and said: [H]ow [are] you doing, young man? The defendant replied: [Y]ou know what you did. Approximately 10:00 p.m. on the night of June 12, 2006, Carmon left his home en route to a convenience store to bum a cigarette. Carmon testified that as he was walking to the store, [the defendant] was there waiting on me. The defendant, using a 9 millimeter pistol, fired five bullets at Carmon and one bullet struck Carmon in his hip. Carmon was able to clearly see the defendant's face when the defendant shot Carmon. Carmon gave the following testimony during the pretrial hearing: Question: ... Were you able to see [the defendant's] face when he shot you? Answer: Yes, I did. Question: How close to you was he, when he shot you? Answer: We were close up, ... his face was in my face. Question: Were you walking when you passed each other? Answer: Yes. Question: Were you on the street or the sidewalk? Answer: We was on the sidewalk. Question: The same sidewalk? Answer: Yes. Question: Do you remember what he was wearing? Answer: Only thing I know was he had a white sweater on. He was trying to cover his face up. Question: What did he look like? Answer: He's dark and ... his mustache comes down this way and his hair is kind of short. Question: When you say[, `]the mustache coming down this way[,'] are you talking about a go-tee or like a fu-man-chu style mustache? Answer: Yes. Detective Robert Hickman, of the Alexandria Police Department, was working on the night of June 12, 2006, and was assigned to investigate these crimes. He interviewed Carmon the night he was admitted to a hospital for treatment. Carmon told Detective Hickman that the assailant was a dark black male in his twenties or thirties, five feet four inches to five feet six inches tall, and very skinny with a mustache that drooped down to his chin. Carmon also informed Hickman that the assailant was wearing a white hooded shirt. Detective Hickman created a photograph-spread and showed it to Carmon at the hospital. The photograph-spread contained a picture of Barnes that was taken in 2002. Detective Hickman did not use a photograph that was taken of Barnes on the night of the crimes because Hickman was concerned that the photograph may be suggestive since Barnes was wearing a white shirt. Carmon failed to identify Barnes as the assailant when Carmon reviewed the photograph-spread that contained the 2002 photograph of Barnes. [] Several months later, however, Carmon identified Barnes as his assailant during a line-up at a jail. Barnes, who had fled the scene of the crimes, later returned to the crime scene that same night. Detective Hickman saw Barnes at the scene of the shooting upon Barnes' return. Barnes spoke with another police officer, Richard Sandoval, and voluntarily accompanied Officer Sandoval to a police station. The police officers were concerned on the night of the crimes that they may not have probable cause to obtain a search warrant of the defendant's home so they requested his permission to conduct a search of his house. Barnes refused. The detectives continued their investigation. Detective Hickman learned that Lisbeth Lyons, who was in the area when the shooting occurred, saw a man leave the scene of the shooting. She described an individual who fit the defendant's description. Eventually, Detective Hickman prepared an affidavit to obtain a search warrant for the defendant's house. The affidavit in support of a search warrant is attached to this opinion as Exhibit A. Detective Hickman also learned, during his investigation, that several patrons at a restaurant saw the defendant after the shooting conceal himself from gentlemen nearby who were living in a truck. Detective Hickman stated in the search warrant affidavit that the defendant sought to conceal himself after the shootings. After Barnes shot the victim, several individuals who were standing nearby spoke with Detective Hickman and another police officer. These individuals stated that they saw a person, with a physical appearance different from Barnes' physical appearance in the vicinity after the victim was shot. Detective Hickman did not include this information in the search warrant affidavit. Detective Hickman testified that according to a police report, another police officer stopped an individual near the scene of the shooting who was wearing a white shirt. However, Detective Hickman did not pursue that individual because he did not match the physical description of the assailant at all. Detective Hickman noted in the police report, however, that another police officer had stopped an individual wearing a white shirt because that officer thought that the individual may have matched the description of the assailant. This information was not included in the search warrant affidavit. Detective Hickman testified that generally he neither includes exculpatory information in search warrant affidavits nor intentionally omits information that may be exculpatory from search warrant affidavits. Detective Hickman stated: I don't put in exculpatory evidence in affidavits. I don't believe that a search warrant affidavit is a complete overview of the entire investigation. I believethe way I complete a search warrant application is, I put in the evidence that rises to a level of probable cause. I don't believe that all evidence needs to be put in, that would give it probable cause. Detective Hickman sought and obtained the search warrant of the defendant's house four days after the defendant shot the victim. During those four days, Hickman discovered additional facts that he included in the search warrant affidavit. Carmon, the victim, knew the models of the automobiles that the defendant usually drove. Two other witnesses identified the defendant in a photograph-spread, and one witness, Colby Cooper, told police officers that he saw the [d]efendant walk up the street and down the street [where the shooting occurred] right at the time of the shooting. Cooper also gave a description of the assailant that is similar to the description that the victim gave to Detective Hickman regarding Barnes. Detective Hickman also learned that the defendant lived on Price Street. Detective Hickman stated the following in the search warrant affidavit. The victim had previously told Detective Hickman that the assailant lived on Price Street. Another witness confirmed that the defendant's nickname was Turk and that Turk lived on Price Street. Detective Hickman showed another witness, Lisbeth Lyons, a photograph-spread, but she was unable to identify the defendant. Detective Hickman did not include that information in the search warrant affidavit. However, two other witnesses, Cooper and Mary McMillan successfully identified the defendant in a photograph-spread and Detective Hickman included this information in the affidavit because he believed it goes towards probable cause. Detective Hickman testified that every fact that he placed in the affidavit was true. Upon the conclusion of the pretrial hearing, the defendant asked the circuit court to suppress all items seized pursuant to the execution of the search warrant, including a handgun, a gun magazine, a white shirt, bullets, and ballistic tests that clearly associated the defendant with the shooting. Rejecting the defendant's motion to exclude the evidence seized from the execution of the search warrant, the circuit court stated: Now, as [the court] understand[s] this [motion], this [ Franks ] case protects against [o]missions that are designed to mislead or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead. [The court doesn't] think Detective Hickman made these omissions with the with a design to mislead. Obviously, he stated that it's just his matter of principle that he doesn't put exculpatory evidence [into] affidavits for search warrants. But it does seem ... that the omissions were probably made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead. Notwithstanding that, [the court has] reviewed this affidavit very, very, very carefully and ... [has] reviewed it with an eye toward including the omissions, which [defendant's counsel] has pointed out, and having done that, [the court is] satisfied that the affidavit, plus the omissions, still establishes probable cause for the search that took place.