338 P.3d 972
Ariz. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bret Frimmel, owner of Uncle Sam’s restaurants, was investigated by Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) for allegedly hiring undocumented workers; five search warrants were issued (three for restaurants/residence in July 2013; two for cell phones in January 2014).
- Execution of the July warrants led to arrests and convictions of some employees; Frimmel was later charged with felonies for employing persons using false identification.
- Frimmel sought a Franks hearing, alleging the affidavits supporting the five warrants contained numerous false statements and omitted material facts known to MCSO (informants’ criminal history and relationship, stale or limited informant knowledge, contradictions in MCSO reports, and benefits given to cooperating suspects).
- Specific alleged misrepresentations/omissions included: informants’ prior convictions and limited, outdated knowledge; misstatements about surveillance and vehicle observations; overstated connections between Frimmel’s residence and the business; and unexplained inclusion of drug-trafficking communications language.
- The trial court denied Frimmel’s request for a Franks hearing; Frimmel petitioned this Court for special action review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Frimmel made the substantial preliminary showing required for a Franks hearing that the affidavits contained knowingly or recklessly false statements or material omissions | Frimmel identified specific false statements and omitted facts (from MCSO reports and public records) that undercut informant credibility, timeliness, and links to Frimmel, and offered documentary proof | State only urged declining special action jurisdiction and did not rebut Frimmel’s factual allegations on review | Court held Frimmel made the requisite substantial showing of reckless falsehoods/omissions and is entitled to a Franks hearing |
| Whether, after excising falsehoods and adding omitted facts, the affidavits still establish probable cause | Frimmel argued the redrafted affidavits would lack probable cause because remaining facts show discrepancies but no credible link tying Frimmel to criminal conduct | Implicitly, the State would argue the affidavits supported probable cause; State did not contest the petition on the merits in this Court | Court concluded that, based on the record, correction of falsities/omissions would defeat probable cause; remanded for a Franks hearing and redetermination |
| Whether special action jurisdiction was appropriate to review denial of Franks hearing | Frimmel argued the issue implicates statewide practices and the integrity of warrant affidavits and that appeal would be inadequate | State asked the court to decline special action jurisdiction | Court exercised discretion to accept special action jurisdiction due to the constitutional and statewide significance |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes right to an evidentiary hearing when an affidavit contains deliberate or reckless falsehoods that were necessary to probable cause)
- State v. Buccini, 167 Ariz. 550 (1991) (discusses Franks hearing standards under Arizona law and the danger of ex parte warrant affidavits)
- United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775 (9th Cir.) (1985) (omissions that make technically true statements misleading can trigger Franks relief)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Chesher, 678 F.2d 1353 (9th Cir.) (1982) (at the pre-hearing stage defendant need not prove falsity with clear proof; specific allegations and offer of proof suffice)