35 F.4th 595
7th Cir.2022Background
- Sanford was charged with possession with intent to distribute heroin, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug‑trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession; police executed a no‑knock search warrant at 608 N. Logan.
- Officer Benjamin Stringer and confidential informant Ashley Hinkle testified in person before a state judge seeking the warrant; Hinkle described repeated heroin purchases at the house, observed Sanford with a gun, and gave identifiable details (e.g., a refrigerator on the front porch).
- The judge issued the no‑knock warrant; the search that day yielded 26.1 grams of heroin, a handgun, ammunition, scales, and cash.
- Afterward Hinkle submitted a declaration claiming officers promised she would not be charged, threatened her with removal of her child if she did not cooperate, and instructed her to deny promises in court; she also had an extensive criminal history and an outstanding failure‑to‑appear warrant.
- The district court held a pre‑Franks hearing, credited Hinkle’s in‑court testimony and Stringer’s testimony over the declaration, found no promises were made and some declaration statements "patently untrue," and denied a full Franks hearing; Sanford pleaded guilty while reserving the Franks issue for appeal.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding Sanford failed to make the substantial preliminary showing required for a Franks hearing and that omission of Hinkle’s criminal history was not material given her in‑court testimony and admissions of drug use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sanford made the substantial preliminary showing to obtain a Franks hearing based on alleged promises/false statements to Hinkle | Hinkle was promised no arrest and threatened re: her child; those undisclosed promises/falsehoods undermined informant credibility and probable cause | Hinkle and Stringer testified in person; judge could assess credibility; declaration contradicted in‑court testimony; no intentional falsehoods material to probable cause | Denied: district court’s credibility findings stand; no substantial showing of deliberate falsehoods or material omissions about promises |
| Whether omission of Hinkle’s criminal history/outstanding warrant required a Franks hearing | Failure to disclose Hinkle’s convictions and active warrant would have materially undercut her credibility and probable cause | Informant testified in court and admitted drug use; judge could and did assess demeanor and ask questions; informant’s criminal conduct was already apparent | Denied: omission not material where informant testified in person and admitted criminal conduct; no Franks hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes standard for requiring an evidentiary hearing when warrant affidavits contain false statements or material omissions)
- United States v. Woodfork, 999 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 2021) (omission of informant history not material where informant testimony and corroboration were before the magistrate)
- United States v. Glover, 755 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2014) (omission of highly relevant informant‑credibility facts from a written affidavit can require a Franks hearing)
- United States v. McMurtrey, 704 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2013) (approving district court use of pre‑Franks hearings to test sufficiency of a defendant’s preliminary showing)
- United States v. Hancock, 844 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2016) (summarizes Franks standard and materiality inquiry)
- United States v. Mullins, 803 F.3d 858 (7th Cir. 2015) (discusses application of Franks to omissions and false statements)
- United States v. Clark, 668 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2012) (district court credibility determinations reviewed for clear error)