Opinion ID: 815090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the Procedural Error Was Harmless

Text: The government argues that the procedural error here was harmless because McMurtrey simply failed to show he was entitled to a Franks hearing. According to the government, the inconsistencies between the Lane and Barisch affidavits, including the information that each officer attributed to the other officer and to the informants, were not sufficient for the preliminary showing needed to require a full Franks hearing. We disagree and conclude that McMurtrey’s preliminary showing was sufficient. Once the government’s new evidence to explain the contradictions is removed from consideration, we are persuaded that McMurtrey made 4 To resolve the contradictions, the government also suggests without evidentiary support that a magistrate examining both the Lane and Barisch affidavits could have reconciled them by concluding that McMurtrey was dealing drugs from both 1514 and 1520 West Aiken. That speculative possibility is not enough to defeat the need for the Franks hearing. The contradictions and discrepancies here were sufficient to support a reasonable inference of deliberate or reckless deception of the issuing judge, and thus required a full Franks hearing at which the government could offer evidence to explain the discrepancies and contradictions. Besides, although Officer Barisch testified that a few houses on West Aiken were being investigated, he also testified that 1520 was not one of them. No. 11-3352 17 a substantial preliminary showing that the search warrant for 1514 West Aiken was obtained on the basis of deliberately or recklessly false information and/or material omissions. It is not easy for a defendant to make the required preliminary showing under Franks, which requires evidence (1) that the warrant contained false information; (2) that the false information was included in the affidavit intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth; and (3) that the false information was necessary to find probable cause and issue the warrant. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56; see also Harris, 464 F.3d at 738; United States v. Whitley, 249 F.3d 614, 620 (7th Cir. 2001).5 The defendant must include with his allegations of material and intentional or reckless falsehoods or omissions “an offer of proof.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. It is well established that conclusory allegations are not 5 If the defendant’s theory is that the police deliberately or recklessly omitted information so as to mislead the magistrate, the standard is even a little more demanding. As the Fourth Circuit has explained, a police officer applying for a search warrant must always select, deliberately, which information about an investigation to give the judge and which informa- tion to leave out. The police need not report every dead end or dry hole in the investigation. As a result, a defendant basing a Franks challenge on omissions must show that a material omission was designed to mislead or was made in reckless disregard of whether it would mislead. United States v. Tate, 524 F.3d 449, 455 (4th Cir. 2008), quoting United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 300-01 (4th Cir. 1990). 18 No. 11-3352 enough, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 580 F.3d 666, 671 (7th Cir. 2009); United States v. Souffront, 338 F.3d 809, 823 (7th Cir. 2003), but it is equally true that the defendant need not come forward with conclusive proof of deliberate or reckless falsity. Otherwise, there would be no need for a Franks hearing. Franks was not yet in play when McMurtrey first moved to suppress the fruits of the search of his home at 1514 West Aiken. In that motion, he argued simply that the search of that property was carried out without a warrant or any other showing of probable cause. Dkt. No. 21. In discovery, the government had produced the warrant for 1520 West Aiken and its supporting papers. At that point, all McMurtrey could have known was that the police had seemingly searched the wrong house. In response to McMurtrey’s initial motion, the government produced the correct search warrant, the one for McMurtrey’s property at 1514 West Aiken. If the statements Officer Barisch made in support of the search warrant affidavit for 1514 West Aiken were true and correct, the police had probable cause to conduct the search. But McMurtrey also had in hand the search warrant affidavit for 1520 West Aiken, in which Officers Lane and Barisch each offered evidence in support of probable cause to search that property that directly contradicted Barisch’s warrant affidavit for 1514 West Aiken. Between the two conflicting affidavits, Officers Lane and Barisch each had contradicted himself and the other officer. With this conflicting evidence in hand, McMurtrey then amended his motion to suppress to invoke Franks. No. 11-3352 19 The amended motion attached the conflicting search warrants and the affidavits from Officers Barisch and Lane and the informant, and the motion highlighted the direct contradictions between the two officers’ affidavits and what each affidavit said about the other officer’s information. This motion and its sup- porting evidence must be our focus for determining whether McMurtrey showed he was entitled to a Franks hearing. And, as explained above, to evaluate properly McMurtrey’s initial showing, we need to disregard the bolstering evidence the government offered in rebuttal to McMurtrey’s motion, including the evidence it presented at the pre-Franks hearing. See Harris, 464 F.3d at 739. We turn to the three elements needed for the preliminary showing. First, when viewed side-by-side, the affidavits made a sufficient showing that the information submitted to obtain the 1514 West Aiken warrant was false. Barisch’s affidavit described criminal and suspicious activity going on at 1514 West Aiken. But Lane’s affidavit said the same activity was going on at 1520 West Aiken and that Barisch had also placed the same activity at 1520 West Aiken. Each officer’s affidavit stated under oath that the other officer gave him information that conflicted directly with what the other officer said in his own affidavit. The contradictions are not conclusive as to which affidavit was false, but it is obvious from the face of the two sworn documents that both could not be correct. Taken together, they made a sufficient preliminary showing of falsity. 20 No. 11-3352 Second, as for deliberate or reckless falsity, these were firsthand reports of direct observations by police officers trained to observe carefully and report accurately. Yet, again, in the Lane affidavit, Officer Lane and Officer Barisch averred that McMurtrey was dealing drugs from 1520 West Aiken. Just a few hours later and without explanation, the same officers contradicted themselves and each other and asserted that McMurtrey was dealing drugs from 1514 West Aiken. Without the bolstering evidence later supplied by the government, one could reasonably infer that one or both versions of the officers’ contradictory statements were deliberately or recklessly false. These were not obvious scrivener’s errors or minor mistakes in communicating information from others. Cf. United States v. Smith, 576 F.3d 762, 765 (7th Cir. 2009) (discrepancy as to whether there were two or three controlled buys did not require Franks hearing); United States v. McClellan, 165 F.3d 535, 545 (7th Cir. 1999) (transposed digits in address of target house in one portion of affidavit not needed for probable cause did not require Franks hearing; remainder of affidavit had correct address). In this case, again, these were direct contradictions in firsthand reports by police officers about their own observations of the critical facts. It is reasonable to infer that such direct contradictions by and between capable and careful police officers were unlikely to be merely negligent. Deliberate or reckless disregard for the truth, like other states of mind, must be shown by circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence in McMurtrey’s Franks motion permitted a reasonable inference of falsity because it provided “obviNo. 11-3352 21 ous reasons to doubt the veracity” of the allegations. See United States v. Whitley, 249 F.3d 614, 621 (7th Cir. 2001) (reversing denial of Franks motion after evidentiary hearing), quoting United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 602 (7th Cir. 1984) (affirming denial of Franks motion after evidentiary hearing). Though a more searching exploration of the circumstances in a full evidentiary hearing may demonstrate otherwise, of course, McMurtrey satisfied his preliminary obligation to show recklessness by these officers. Third, the apparently false information went to the heart of probable cause for the search. Were the controlled buys made in the 1514 house or the 1520 house? Each warrant application on its own was sufficient to support probable cause for a search, but if we disregard the information about McMurtrey’s apparent drug-dealing activity at 1514 West Aiken, which is contradicted by the application for 1520 West Aiken, the probable cause disappears. The apparently false information was critical to probable cause for the search. The government argues that the inconsistencies between the Lane and Barisch affidavits, including the information that each officer attributed to the other officer and to his informants, fell short of the preliminary showing needed to require a full Franks hearing. For the reasons set forth above, we disagree. The gov- ernment also argues that McMurtrey failed to show the Barisch affidavit was false and that in fact the Barisch affidavit was true. To make this argument, however, 22 No. 11-3352 the government must rely on a source of evidence that is not properly available to it: Barisch’s testimony from the pre-Franks hearing, where he was not subject to full cross-examination. Gov’t Br. 22. In other words, the government relies on the results of the hearing to show that the hearing was unnecessary and the search was proper. The argument is circular and conflicts with both Franks and Harris. It underscores the need for a full hearing. When we focus properly on just the amended motion to suppress in which McMurtrey sought a Franks hearing, we conclude that he came forward with sufficient specific evidence, not just allegations and conclusions, to support a reasonable inference of deliberate or reckless falsity. The government was not entitled to defeat his request for a hearing by presenting its evidence and explanations without subjecting them to full scrutiny and cross-examination at a Franks evidentiary hearing, as Harris made clear. Such a hearing is the proper forum for the government to present its explanations for the contradictions, including what it asserts were the officers’ discovery of the apparent confusion about the proper address and their efforts to sort things out. On remand, if the district court credits Barisch’s explanation of events, the Franks issue will become whether the police deliberately or recklessly misled the judge who issued the 1514 West Aiken warrant by omitting information about the officers’ confusion and efforts to confirm the correct information. On this issue, No. 11-3352 23 the Fourth Circuit’s explanation of the Franks standard as applied to omissions may be useful. See United States v. Tate, 524 F.3d 449, 454-55 (4th Cir. 2008) (officer applying for warrant must select which information to include and which to omit; issue is whether material information was omitted deliberately or recklessly to mislead the magistrate); see also United States v. McNeese, 901 F.2d 585, 594 (7th Cir. 1990) (discussing Franks as applied to omissions), overruled on other grounds as recognized by United States v. Westmoreland, 240 F.3d 618, 632-33 (7th Cir. 2001); United States v. Simmons, 771 F. Supp. 2d 908, 916-18 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (finding omissions were intended to mislead). The police need not provide every detail of an investigation, nor describe every wrong turn or dead end they pursued. But they may not deliberately omit information the magistrate needs to assess fairly the issue of probable cause.