991 F.3d 51
1st Cir.2021Background
- April 14, 2018: Somersworth police responded to a report that Damon Austin threatened Christopher Brown with a handgun outside Brown's home; Brown said Austin had been staying there and had previously acquired the Glock in a drug-for-gun exchange.
- Officers stopped a vehicle driven by Tanya Phillips containing Austin; a loaded magazine was found on Austin, a Glock was observed in the front seat, and two containers of hash butane oil were found on Austin; Austin admitted to being a convicted felon and a gang member.
- Officer DeFrancesco swore an affidavit recounting Brown's firsthand statements about drugs, gun storage (two safes) and gun possession at the shared residence, and Phillips’s corroborating statements after waiving Miranda; a warrant issued and the search recovered seven more firearms (six interstate commerce).
- Austin was indicted on two counts under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2); he moved to suppress arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause and omitted material facts; the district court denied suppression and denied a Franks hearing.
- Austin pleaded guilty on January 31, 2019; after Rehaif v. United States (June 21, 2019), he was sentenced in November 2019 and appealed, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause, a Franks hearing was required, and the plea/indictment omitted the Rehaif status element.
- The First Circuit affirmed: (1) the warrant was supported by probable cause based on Brown’s identified, firsthand account plus Phillips’s corroboration; (2) no clear error in denying a Franks hearing; and (3) no plain error in accepting the guilty plea or in the indictment omission under Rehaif.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for search warrant | Warrant supported: Brown was a credible, identified victim/witness and Phillips corroborated; fair probability evidence would be at residence | Brown was effectively a confidential informant needing corroboration; affidavit omitted material facts | Aff'd — Brown was a percipient/victim witness with firsthand, corroborated details; warrant met probable cause standard |
| Franks evidentiary hearing | No hearing necessary; affidavit valid and omissions not shown to be intentional/reckless or material | Affidavit omitted material contradictory reports (e.g., Phillips invoked Miranda; Austin said he sought a game console) warranting Franks hearing | Aff'd — defendant failed to make the required substantial showing; omitted reports either did not exist yet or were immaterial |
| Rehaif error at plea colloquy (plain error) | Rehaif status element is structural; omission requires vacatur | Any Rehaif element would not have changed plea choice given Austin’s admissions and favorable plea terms | Aff'd — court follows Patrone/Farmer: omission not structural; no reasonable probability Austin would have gone to trial |
| Indictment omission of Rehaif status element | Omission violated substantial rights and requires relief | Guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects; indictment was proper when filed; no plain error | Aff'd — plea-waiver bars challenge; even on plain-error review, omission did not seriously impair fairness |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (requires government to prove defendant knew his prohibited status under §922(g))
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes right to evidentiary hearing if affidavit contains intentional or reckless falsehoods or material omissions)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Patrone, 985 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2021) (Rehaif-related challenge to plea colloquy reviewed for plain error; omission not structural)
- United States v. Lara, 970 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2020) (Rehaif indictment challenges reviewed for plain error; indictment proper pre-Rehaif)
- United States v. Burghardt, 939 F.3d 397 (1st Cir. 2019) (plain-error framework for undisclosed plea-colloquy defects)
- United States v. Joubert, 778 F.3d 247 (1st Cir. 2015) (four-corners rule for reviewing warrant affidavits)
- United States v. Ramírez-Rivera, 800 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2015) (limits of relying on anonymous or non-percipient confidential tips for probable cause)