United States v. Allen Brown
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1059
| 3rd Cir. | 2011Background
- Brown is indicted for bank robbery and armed bank robbery; DNA warrant suppression was granted for a false warrant affidavit under Franks.
- An S&T Bank in Ford City was robbed on Oct 1, 2007; a Scream mask with DNA was found in the stolen van.
- Witnesses linked a silver Volkswagen Jetta to Brown via Wingate, Brown’s associate, who admitted Brown’s connection to a Jetta and Ford City visits.
- Detectives sought a DNA warrant; Special Agent Smith prepared an affidavit with an abbreviated factual recitation and a purported witness sequence in Paragraph 7(c).
- Paragraph 7(c) falsely claimed witnesses observed the van meet the Jetta and drive away; the district court found this showed reckless disregard and suppressed the evidence.
- The government appealed; the Third Circuit affirmed, holding that Franks recklessness is reviewed for clear error and that Smith’s fabrication supports suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper standard of review for recklessness in Franks? | Government argues de novo review is required for recklessness. | Brown argues recklessness is a factual question reviewed for clear error. | Recklessness is reviewed for clear error. |
| Did Smith act with reckless disregard for the truth in Paragraph 7(c)? | Smith believed the information was accurate when drafted. | Paragraph 7(c) was fabricated or without basis, showing recklessness. | Yes; the court affirmed suppression due to recklessness. |
| If Paragraph 7(c) is excised, do remaining facts still support probable cause? | Remaining facts could still support probable cause linking Brown to the crime. | Excision leaves insufficient probable cause. | Excision does not restore probable cause; suppression upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (framework for suppressing evidence from false warrant affidavits)
- Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (recklessness requires serious doubts or obvious reasons to doubt veracity)
- Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1985) ( governs mixed questions; de novo when purely legal, otherwise related to facts)
- McConney v. United States, 728 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1984) (framework for deference vs de novo review in mixed questions)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (U.S. 2009) (negligent miscommunications do not trigger suppression; deterrence rationale)
- Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1982) (distinguishes law-vs-fact in mixed questions for standard of review)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (U.S. 1968) (concept of 'good faith' and basis for recklessness in defamation analogies)
- Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1984) (constitutional-sprerogative review for right-related issues; deference in certain contexts)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable-cause standard after removing false statements)