Opinion ID: 1025988
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Excluded Information

Text: Appellant cites three facts that Officer Graves excluded from his affidavit: Officer Graves failed to state that other trash cans in the alley were also marked 601, he claimed that the trash bags were removed from the trash can marked 601, rather than from two cans, and he omitted that while he found a document addressed to 601 Northside Avenue, the addressee was Tammy Sauls, rather than Melvin as identified by the informant. Appellant claims that under Franks v. Delaware , the warrant must be voided. Franks held that where an officer makes a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard to the truth, and that false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the warrant is void and the fruits of the search must be suppressed. Franks, 438 U.S. at 156, 98 S.Ct. 2674. But while Officer Graves's omissions are troubling, they were not necessary to the finding of probable cause. Appellant argues that it is possible that another person placed the offending bags in the trash cans, or that some other person moved the unmarked can from its correct spot behind someone else's home to a place behind appellant's home. Had the officer disclosed that there were two trash cans, he argues, or that there were additional trash cans labeled 601 in the alley, the magistrate might have considered these possibilities and found probable cause wanting. Appellant has offered circumstances in which the trash can evidence might not have come from the residents of 601 Northside Avenue. But a finding of probable cause does not require absolute certainty. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) (holding that probable cause exists if there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place (emphasis added)). While it is possible that the trash in the cans behind 601 Northside Avenue was not generated by appellant Melvin Gary, that mere possibility does not defeat probable cause. The most likely scenario is simply this: Trash cans placed directly behind a home are used by those who live there. Trash inside those trash cans, particularly if contained in trash bags, is usually generated by the house closest to those cans. This analysis does not change if there are two trash cans located behind a home, rather than one. Nor does it change if one of those trash cans is unmarked. Instead, it suggests that the residents of the home generate more trash than will fit in one can, and that the residents did not mark both their trash cans. We acknowledge that it is possible that the unmarked can belonged to another address. Given that the can was found behind 601, however, that possibility is too slight to defeat probable cause. Probable cause is reinforced by the fact that a letter addressed to 601 Northside Avenue was found inside the trash bags. While Officer Graves did not disclose that the letter was actually addressed to Tammy Sauls rather than Melvin, this fact does not defeat the finding of probable cause. The letter established that the garbage came from the correct address. It is not unusual for several people to live at one address, and an officer who found such a letter might reasonably suppose that Tammy Sauls was another resident of 601 Northside, in addition to the Melvin mentioned by the informant. Furthermore, although the informant mentioned an individual named Melvin, the evidence obtained from the trash search suggested that at least one occupant of 601 Northside was selling heroin. The warrant issued allowed the officers to search the entire dwelling and entire curtilage. It was not limited to Melvin's belongings. As such, the presence of another name on a letter would have made no difference to the probable cause inquiry. Because Officer Graves's omissions were not material to the finding of probable cause, the district court correctly held that the warrant was not invalid under Franks v. Delaware , and properly refused to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of appellant's home.