Opinion ID: 624879
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trash Pull

Text: Spears challenges a number of statements in the affidavit regarding the July 31 trash pull. He first contends that the affidavit included a material omission when it stated that the marijuana stem was found in the trash without disclosing that the trash was emptied onto the bed of a truck that was used in previous trash pulls. Such an inclusion would have painted a broader picture, but the initial inquiry for Franks purposes is not one about how the affidavit can be perfected, it is simply whether the misinformation in the affidavit was included (or the material omission was excluded) with intent or reckless disregard for the truth. Here, Spears does not show that the district court clearly erred in its determination that the omission was intentional or reckless, especially since the stem was found along with other evidence that tended to show a marijuana grow operation that Spears does not allege could have been leftover on the truck from a previous pull. As to those other items, Spears argues that Duncanson gave too much credit to the aquarium materials (that the informant did not mention) without disclosing that no fertilizer or growing mediums (which the informant did mention) were found. However, it is perfectly clear that aquarium equipment has a legal purpose, namely, having a home aquarium. We cannot find that the failure of Duncanson to articulate that these items have a legal purpose is a material omission, let alone one made with intent or reckless disregard. Additionally, it is also clear from the face of the affidavit that the items recovered during the trash pull did not perfectly match the items described by the informant (with the exception of the plant stem). We therefore find that the omission was immaterial. See United States v. Norris, 640 F.3d 295, 302 (7th Cir.2011) ([T]he facts withheld also must be `material' to the probable cause determination.) (citation omitted). Spears does not heavily rely on the inconsistent testimony as to who actually found the plant stem to show a Franks violation, but for purposes of completeness, we address that argument here. The affidavit stated that Trooper Sample located a fresh, green/brown, pliable plant stem in the trash, and immediately recognized the stem to be from a marijuana plant. Spears points to testimony at the Franks hearing that he argues calls this into question. Trooper Michalak testified that he didn't remember who recovered the marijuana stem. Trooper Sample first testified that Agents Duncanson and Clark had pulled plant material out of the trash before he arrived at the garage, but then later stated that it was he who found the plant material. Regardless of the slight inconsistencies, however, the district court found that the testimony did not reveal that the statements in the affidavit were made with intent to deceive or with reckless disregard of the truth. The court noted that Duncanson prefaced the affidavit by saying that the information was based on firsthand knowledge and the information provided by other law enforcement officers and witnesses, and that this statement was applicable here. The court found the slight variations in testimony as to who found the stem did not show intent or reckless disregard for the truth. This finding is not clearly erroneous.