Opinion ID: 6341114
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The GPS Tracking Warrant

Text: Edwards argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained through the GPS tracking device on the Outlander. He contends that the warrant is unconstitutional because Detective Schultz’s aﬃdavit violated Franks v. Delaware and failed to establish probable cause. Edwards does not argue that the aﬃdavit, absent Franks relief, would be facially insuﬃcient to support probable cause. 10 No. 20-3297 Placing a GPS tracking device on a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search, requiring law enforcement to show probable cause and obtain a warrant beforehand. See United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 404 (2012). Where the aﬃdavit is the only evidence supporting probable cause, the issuing court focuses “solely on the strength of the aﬃdavit.” United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d 754, 755–56 (7th Cir. 2003). Under Franks, the district court must suppress evidence seized during a search “when the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the aﬃdavit in support of the warrant contains false statements or misleading omissions, (2) the false statements or omissions were made deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth, and (3) probable cause would not have existed without the false statements and/or omissions.” United States v. Williams, 718 F.3d 644, 647–48 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 155–56). “An aﬃant acts with reckless disregard for the truth when he ‘in fact entertain[s] serious doubts as to the truth of his allegations.’” Id. at 650 (quoting United States v. Lowe, 516 F.3d 580, 584 (7th Cir. 2008)). The inquiry is subjective, focusing on the aﬃant’s state of mind. Id. Reckless disregard is greater than negligence. Id. “[O]ur task is to determine whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for the [lower] court to conclude that law enforcement did not doubt the truth of the aﬃdavit.” Id. A Franks violation predicated on an omission requires that it was done “deliberately or recklessly to mislead the issuing [judge].” Id. (citing United States v. McMurtrey, 704 F.3d 502, 513 (7th Cir. 2013)). We review factual determinations, including whether the oﬃcer made statements deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth, for clear error. Id. at 649 (citing United States No. 20-3297 11 v. Spears, 673 F.3d 598, 604 (7th Cir. 2012)). “A factual ﬁnding is clearly erroneous only if, after considering all of the evidence, we cannot avoid or ignore a deﬁnite and ﬁrm conviction that a mistake has been made.” United States v. Hammond, 996 F.3d 374, 383 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting United States v. Thurman, 889 F.3d 356, 363 (7th Cir. 2018)). We see no error in the district court’s denial of Edwards’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the GPS tracking device because Edwards has failed to identify a false statement or misleading omission in the supporting aﬃdavit. The Neil’s Liquor security camera footage supports the description in Detective Schultz’s aﬃdavit and corroborates his representations to the issuing judge. Our own review of the tape supports the district court’s conclusions, and its ﬁndings are not clearly erroneous. Additionally, the aﬃant’s underreporting of Edwards’s criminal history does not render the warrant constitutionally deﬁcient. If anything, the underreporting beneﬁted Edwards. Furthermore, even if the explanation of Edwards’s criminal history was misleading, Edwards fails to establish that Detective Schultz deliberately or recklessly attempted to mislead the issuing judge. The magistrate judge credited Detective Schultz’s testimony that he had no intention to mislead. We defer to the magistrate judge who “had the opportunity to lis- ten to testimony and observe the demeanor of a witness at the suppression hearing.” Thurman, 889 F.3d at 366 (quoting United States v. Biggs, 491 F.3d 616, 621 (7th Cir. 2007)). Because Edwards cannot identify any evidence that the magistrate judge’s credibility ﬁnding was clearly erroneous, the dis- trict court did not err when it denied the motion to suppress evidence from the GPS tracking device. 12 No. 20-3297