United States v. Collet Williams
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10025
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- On April 9, 2004, ATF and Chicago police executed a warrant at Williams’ residence and found roughly five kilograms of marijuana, a handgun, and scales.
- Williams moved to suppress the seized evidence, arguing the warrant affidavit contained false statements and omissions made with reckless disregard for the truth under Franks v. Delaware.
- The district court held a Franks hearing and found no reckless disregard and that probable cause would have remained after removing errors and adding omitted material.
- Williams was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) after a bench trial and challenges the denial of his suppression motion.
- The court affirmed, holding the district court did not clearly err in finding no deliberate or reckless misleadings, and thus a Franks violation was not established.
- The warrant affidavit relied on Bell (an informant) and referenced J. Doe; notably, the affidavit omitted monitored Bell–Williams phone calls that bore on probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers acted with reckless disregard for the truth | Williams contends Korbas’ statements were knowingly false and the omissions were deliberate. | The district court found no deliberate or reckless disregard; errors arose from haste. | Not clearly erroneous; no reckless disregard established. |
| Whether omissions about Bell’s credibility and status were reckless | Omissions about Bell’s arrest, California location, and inconsistencies misled the magistrate. | Omissions resulted from time pressure; not clearly reckless given corroborating evidence. | Not clearly erroneous; omissions did not show reckless disregard. |
| Whether the April 8 drug-buy date was included with reckless disregard | Inclusion of the April 8 date misled by contradicting Bell’s earlier statements. | Labno believed the date to be true based on the monitored call and timing; no recklessness. | Not clearly erroneous; state of mind not shown to be reckless. |
| Whether omissions about inconsistent gun details undermine probable cause | Omitting inconsistencies about guns undermines credibility and probable cause. | Inconsistencies were immaterial; other probable-cause factors existed. | Not clearly erroneous; inconsistencies deemed immaterial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (material false statements or omissions require suppression if material to probable cause)
- United States v. McMurtrey, 704 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2013) (reckless disregard standard for Franks omissions and affidavit materiality)
- United States v. Spears, 673 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2012) (clear-error review of factual findings in Franks proceedings)
- United States v. Davis, 714 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1983) (false source attribution can negate probable cause if knowingly false)
- United States v. Harris, 464 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2006) (monitored calls not always part of probable cause, but relevant to recklessness)
- United States v. Whitley, 249 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2001) (Franks inquiry includes affiant’s state of mind and information chain)
- United States v. A Residence Located at 218 Third Street, 805 F.2d 256 (7th Cir. 1986) (early precedent on materiality and recklessness in Franks context)