ILNews

District Court didn't err in Franks hearing

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a defendant's drug conviction following a Franks hearing, affirming the U.S. District Court's decision to reconsider one of its findings and to not compel the government to identify the confidential informant in the case.

The case of United States of America v. Antone C. Harris, No. 07-1315, made its way back to the 7th Circuit after the federal appellate court originally remanded the case to the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, to hold a Franks hearing because it found the court had improperly denied Antone Harris a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

A magistrate judge had issued a warrant to search Harris' home for cocaine and drug contraband pursuant to an affidavit from Indianapolis Police Department Detective Michael Forrest.

Forrest's original affidavit contained some incorrect information. Despite three false and misleading statements, the District Court denied Harris' motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, the 7th Circuit remanded the case with instructions to hold a Franks hearing to determine whether the search warrant was unconstitutional.

In a Franks hearing, in order for a defendant to show a search warrant was unconstitutional, he must show by a preponderance of the evidence 1) the search warrant contained false material statements; 2) the affiant omitted the material fact, or made the false statement intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth; and 3) the false statement is material for finding the probable cause.

Based on Forrest's testimony at the hearing, the District Court ruled Harris didn't meet his burden of demonstrating the evidence in the warrant affidavit was insufficient to show probable cause. The District Court also denied his request to compel disclosure of the confidential informant who was used in the affidavit.

Harris argued that the District Court should have been bound by its initial determination that the warrant affidavit contained misleading information as to the date of the confidential informant's conversations about purchasing cocaine with Harris in the Goodlet Avenue residence.

To constrain the District Court would have forced it to ignore evidence from the hearing, a result that "is neither necessary nor justified," wrote Judge Ann Claire Williams. As a result, the District Court didn't abuse its discretion when it determined it wasn't bound by the law of the case doctrine from reconsidering whether the statements in the warrant affidavit were materially false.

Harris moved the District Court to compel the government to disclose the identity of and produce the confidential informant, believing there was no informant and the detective made up the informant's existence. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that when confidential informants are just "tipsters," disclosure of their identity isn't required.

"Because the CI (confidential informant)'s only role was to provide information that served as the basis for obtaining the search warrant, there is no reason to believe that the CI would testify at trial in such a way that would refute or cast doubt on whether Harris was in possession of crack cocaine on April 20, 2004. The CI is therefore a 'tipster' whose identity need not be disclosed," the judge wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  2. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  3. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  4. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  5. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

ADVERTISEMENT