Opinion ID: 2772305
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Franks Claim

Text: Marquardt next contends that the trial court should have held a Franks hearing because the Wisconsin magistrate who issued the warrant was misled by information in the affidavit that the affiant knew was false. Under Franks, a court must grant a request for a hearing if the defendant makes a substantial preliminary 8. We also note that Marquardt filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. Marquardt v. Dir., Mendota Mental Health Inst., 06-C-684-S, 2007 WL 528345, at  (W.D. Wis. Feb. 14, 2007). The federal district court determined that Marquardt was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in Wisconsin. Id. at  (“In this case the record indicates that the Wisconsin Supreme Court carefully addressed petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim concerning the search of his cabin finding that the good faith exception applied according to United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984), because the State had shown that the process by which it obtained the search warrant included a significant investigation. Petitioner had a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claims in state court. Accordingly, petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed. . . .”). - 25 - showing that: (1) the affiant made a false statement either knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth; and (2) the false statement was necessary to the determination that probable cause existed. 438 U.S. at 15556. Under Leon, the good faith exception cannot be applied if the affidavit that supports the search warrant included knowing or reckless falsehoods. 468 U.S. at 914 (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56). Marquardt asserts that this issue was not litigated in Wisconsin, and, therefore, the ruling of the Florida trial court that collateral estoppel applied was erroneous. Marquardt requested a Franks hearing for the warrant in a Wisconsin trial court. Marquardt, 705 N.W.2d at 885 n.8. During the review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, however, he did not request a remand for a Franks hearing, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Marquardt had conceded the issue, stating as follows: Marquardt has not argued on appeal that the other three Leon disqualifying circumstances present a bar to the application of the good faith exception in this case. We take this as a concession that those disqualifying circumstances do not apply here. We note, however, that with respect to the Chippewa County case, Marquardt requested a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), on the issue of whether the warrant application contained material misstatements and omissions. See State v. Marquardt, 635 N.W.2d 188. This issue corresponds to the first Leon disqualifying circumstance. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984) (citing Franks). The court of appeals did not reach the Franks issue, see Marquardt, 635 N.W.2d 188, and it appears that Marquardt has abandoned his argument on the applicability of the first Leon circumstance. Although he made minimal reference to Franks - 26 - and the first Leon circumstance in one of his briefs and at oral argument, he has not expressly argued that this court should decide whether the first Leon circumstance applies and he has not requested that this court remand for a Franks hearing. Id. Marquardt now seeks a Franks hearing in Florida on the same warrant to suppress the same evidence he sought to suppress in Wisconsin. Whether the magistrate was misled is part of the good faith analysis under Leon. The Wisconsin Supreme Court engaged in a good faith analysis consistent with Leon, determined that Marquardt had conceded the Franks issue, and held that the good faith exception applied. Id. Thus, Marquardt abandoned this claim in Wisconsin, where he had an opportunity to litigate it, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained as a result of the warrant was admissible under Wisconsin law and the United States Constitution. Id. at 890. As a result, the evidence was admissible in Florida pursuant to Echols.9