United States v. Chad Hansmeier
867 F.3d 807
7th Cir.2017Background
- After two controlled buys from Jason Walker, officers arrested Walker; Walker identified Chad Hansmeier as his Missouri drug source and directed officers to Hansmeier’s house.
- Agents ran limited background checks via case.net showing both men on parole and Hansmeier with prior drug-related convictions; Agent Murphy drafted an affidavit relying largely on Walker’s statements and some other hearsay sources.
- The affidavit alleged repeated purchases (including large quantities), presence of drugs and cash at the house, prior behavior (flushing drugs), and claimed video surveillance — and requested a no-knock warrant. A state judge signed the warrant.
- Execution of the warrant uncovered a firearm, cash, marijuana, paraphernalia, and ~200 grams of a powdery substance; Hansmeier was arrested and indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana.
- Hansmeier moved to suppress, arguing (1) lack of probable cause because Walker was an untested, newly arrested informant whose statements were insufficiently corroborated, and (2) the affidavit contained material falsehoods/omissions (Franks). The district court denied suppression; Hansmeier pleaded guilty while reserving appeal rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for warrant | Walker was an untested, newly arrested CI; affidavit relied on uncorroborated statements so no probable cause | Affidavit included corroboration (directions to house, case.net records, other CI info), detailed firsthand, recent observations; judge entitled to deferential review | Affidavit provided substantial evidence for probable cause; issuing judge’s finding affirmed |
| Material falsehoods/omissions (Franks) | Affidavit misstated timeline of visits and misstated prior flushing incident; omissions were reckless and material to probable cause/no-knock | Errors were negligent or imprecise, not deliberate/reckless; omissions not necessary to probable cause or to warrant absent no-knock; officer reasonably relied on colleagues’ recollection | No Franks violation: no deliberate/reckless falsehoods/omissions and inaccuracies were not necessary to establish probable cause; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (permits challenge to truthfulness of affidavit supporting search warrant)
- United States v. McIntire, 516 F.3d 576 (deference to issuing judge’s probable-cause finding)
- United States v. Bell, 585 F.3d 1045 (strength of affidavit when affidavit is sole evidence; informant credibility factors)
- United States v. Olson, 408 F.3d 366 (value of criminal-history corroboration and informant review)
- United States v. Gregory, 795 F.3d 735 (Franks suppression standard and necessity showing)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (violation of knock-and-announce rule does not require suppression of evidence)