947 F.3d 1076
8th Cir.2020Background
- In November 2015, a 12-year-old (R.M.) disclosed in a forensic interview that her stepfather, Brent Daigle, had sexually abused her since age seven and that he recorded the abuse on electronic devices, most recently a silver/samsung/LG cellphone in a camouflage case with tan bumpers.
- Law enforcement obtained consent to search the family home and seized multiple electronic devices; a judge issued a warrant to search those devices after a telephonic affidavit by Sheriff Robert Hook.
- Daigle was arrested in Louisiana; officers seized a silver LG cell phone matching R.M.’s description. Sheriff Hook later sought and obtained a warrant to search that phone based on a written affidavit and oral testimony at a probable‑cause hearing.
- The phone’s forensic exam recovered deleted videos showing Daigle sexually abusing R.M.; Daigle was charged in federal court and moved to suppress the phone evidence and sought a Franks hearing.
- The district court denied suppression and declined a Franks hearing; Daigle later sought reconsideration based on a prior (2013) investigation involving inconsistent statements and a polygraph, which the court also denied. Daigle pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sheriff Hook’s written affidavit (supplemented by oral testimony) established probable cause to search Daigle’s LG phone | Daigle: affidavit omitted key reliability and source details, officer qualifications, and factual basis for R.M.’s knowledge of video, so no probable cause | Government: affidavit plus Sheriff Hook’s in‑court testimony and R.M.’s forensic interview supplied sufficient indicia of reliability and detail to support probable cause | Held: Issuing judge had a substantial basis for probable cause; suppression denied |
| Whether Daigle made a substantial preliminary showing under Franks to merit a hearing | Daigle: Sheriff Hook intentionally/recklessly omitted exculpatory material (2013 investigation, polygraph, R.M.’s 2013 denial, lack of findings from the first device search, and spouse’s motive) | Government: omitted facts were immaterial to probable cause or would not negate probable cause if included | Held: No abuse of discretion in denying a Franks hearing; omissions would not have eliminated probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (sets standard for challenging affidavits based on false statements or omissions)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (establishes good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances standard for probable cause)
- United States v. Rajewich, 470 F.2d 666 (8th Cir. 1972) (victim/eyewitness statements supply indicia of reliability)
- United States v. Wallace, 550 F.3d 729 (8th Cir. 2008) (victim’s untrue statements do not necessarily destroy credibility relevant to probable cause)