Opinion ID: 2972355
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Initial Order of the District Court

Text: Judge Donald’s initial order rejecting in part the Report and Recommendation stated succinctly as follows: This matter is before the Court on Defendant Julian Neal Riddick’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”) which recommended granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to suppress. Defendant contends that this Court should reject the magistrate judge’s report insofar as it recommends denying suppression. Defendant contends that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was insufficient to establish probable cause absent the false statement and therefore violated the Franks doctrine. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). Plaintiff has filed a response to Defendant’s objections. After an evidentiary hearing, and upon consideration of the entire record de novo, for the reasons set forth in the separate memorandum to be filed, the [sic] finds that the affidavit in support of the search warrant contained false statements and material omissions made with reckless disregard for the truth. The false and misleading statements, and the failure to apprize Judge Todd of the informant’s 5 true background and character, denied Judge Todd the opportunity to evaluate the trustworthiness of the information which provided the probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. Once the false and misleading statements are excluded, no probable cause exists to support the issuance of the search warrant. Accordingly, Defendant’s objections to the Report and Recommendation are sustained, and Defendant’s motion to suppress is granted. (Emphasis added.) III. A Summary of the District Court’s Separate Memorandum in Support of Suppression Judge Donald focused on three areas in the separate memorandum opinion. First the opinion found that the person described in paragraph 34 as the CI was, as admitted by the government, Danny Lovelace and that the government failed to provide information to Chief Judge Todd that it had pertaining to Lovelace’s lack of credibility or veracity based on prior felony convictions, his state of depression, his possession of firearms even though he was a convicted felon, his threats to other individuals, his addiction to Klonopin, and his recent arrests. Secondly, the opinion held that the government had misrepresented, with reckless disregard for the truth that it had corroborated Lovelace’s allegations in two instances. The first misrepresentation dealt with the sentences within paragraph 34 which declared: The CI stated once the deed transfer had taken place, Delmar Lovelace faxed the information along with insurance papers to RIDDICK at the Planters Bank from telephone number 901-852 4189 and this took place sometime in April 1998. SA Frizzell confirmed that a call to Planters Bank in Maury City, was placed from telephone number 901-852-4189 on 04/21/1998 at 8:33am. SA Frizzell also confirmed that no other calls were placed to Planters Bank from that telephone number during April 1998. 6 It was subsequently developed that the number was the main phone number to Planters Bank and not a fax and thus, as Judge Donald held, the affidavit conveyed a false statement that a fax transmission from Lovelace to the Defendant was “confirmed” by the government. The second misrepresentation as found by Judge Donald related to paragraph 37 which declared that “investigators have confirmed RIDDICK’s participation and knowledge in the nominee loans to Hutcherson and his participation and knowledge in the arson at the house at 561 Dogwood Drive in Decaturville, Tennessee through electronic surveillance.” The content of the surveillance tapes was disclosed in the evidentiary hearings. After considering the tapes, Judge Donald, after again questioning the reliability of Danny Lovelace, stated that “[e]ven if the Court assumes that Defendant’s repeated warnings demonstrated that he knew about Lovelace’s involvement in the arson after it occurred, these warnings do not show Defendant’s ex ante knowledge of or participation in the arson.” Judge Donald eventually concluded that “paragraph 37 contains a false or materially misleading statement in violation of Franks and requires a rereading of the affidavit, with paragraph thirty-seven removed, to assess whether a substantial basis remains for finding probable cause for the two search warrants” and then after examining paragraphs 13, 33, 35, and 36 concluded that no probable cause remained to support the issuance of the search warrants. IV. A Summary of the Government's Position on Appeal The government argued in its brief and at oral argument that the statements by the CI, i.e., Danny Lovelace were made in the context of his admissions against his penal interest and thus were entitled to be considered on the issue of probable cause, contrary to the position of the district court. Secondly, the government took the position that the surveillance tapes clearly support the proposition 7 that Riddick was involved in bank fraud schemes while conceding that the use of the word “confirmed” in paragraph 37 as to Riddick’s “participation . . . in the arson . . . through electronic surveillance” overstated the substance of the tapes, but that the tapes demonstrate Riddick's involvement in a bank fraud scheme.