United States v. Craig Pulley
987 F.3d 370
| 4th Cir. | 2021Background
- Four nearly-identical armed pharmacy robberies occurred in Norfolk between April 2016 and October 2017; investigators suspected a two-person team and ultimately focused on Darryl Blunt and Craig Pulley.
- Cell-site/GPS data linked Blunt to several scenes and showed an incoming call from a number associated with Pulley during one robbery; Blunt later implicated Pulley to police.
- Searches of Blunt produced prescription pills, clothing matching robbery descriptions, ammunition/magazine, and (on jail video) a distinctive purple gun later hidden by Blunt in his cell.
- Detective C.J. Howard prepared affidavits for warrants against Pulley that relied heavily on Blunt’s statements and averred that Blunt “has provided information found to be credible by detectives.”
- The affidavits omitted (1) that Blunt had identified himself as the person who discarded robbery clothing, (2) that another officer believed Pulley had been jailed during two 2016 robberies, and (3) that Blunt denied knowledge of the purple gun despite video evidence; Pulley sought suppression under Franks.
- After a two-day Franks hearing the district court credited Detective Howard, denied suppression, and Pulley entered a conditional guilty plea; the Fourth Circuit majority affirmed, with a dissent arguing reversal under Lull.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pulley) | Defendant's Argument (Gov./Howard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affiant’s statement that Blunt was “found to be credible” was false/misleading | Statement overstated Blunt’s credibility and was objectively false given Blunt’s lies | Affiant meant Blunt’s statements were corroborated in part; not a blanket assertion of truth | Court: Not false as pleaded; no clear error in district court credibility finding; upheld affiant’s wording |
| Whether omission that Blunt said he discarded clothes was reckless (collective-knowledge imputing) | Omission misleading because another detective heard Blunt admit discarding clothes; knowledge should be imputed | Affiant testified she did not personally know that before arrest; collective-knowledge inapplicable to Franks intentionality | Court: Collective-knowledge cannot supply subjective recklessness; district court credited affiant’s testimony; no clear error |
| Whether omission of information that Pulley might have been incarcerated in 2016 showed reckless disregard | Omission concealed a potentially exculpatory timeline undermining probable cause | Affiant doubted that report and had no corroboration; she reasonably omitted unverified/false info | Court: Affiant had doubts and omission was not reckless; the purported custody info was later shown false; no clear error |
| Whether omission that Blunt initially denied involvement and lied about the purple gun undermined informant credibility/materiality | Omitting that Blunt lied and hid the gun rendered affidavit misleading and material to probable cause (Lull) | Affiant viewed denials as common minimization; she relied on corroboration and did not think those denials affected warrant relevance | Court (majority): District court credibly found no recklessness; did not reach materiality because intentionality not shown. Dissent: would find reckless omission and materiality requiring suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes two-prong test for challenging warrant affidavits: intentional/reckless falsehoods or omissions and materiality)
- United States v. Lull, 824 F.3d 109 (4th Cir. 2016) (omissions that undermine an informant’s veracity can show reckless disregard and be material)
- United States v. Wharton, 840 F.3d 163 (4th Cir. 2016) (Franks framework and requirements for omissions)
- United States v. Brown, 631 F.3d 638 (3d Cir. 2011) (district court’s recklessness/intentionality findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297 (4th Cir. 1990) (affiant need not include every investigative detail; commonsense reading of affidavits)
- Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781 (3d Cir. 2000) (reckless omission when omitted facts are the kind a magistrate would want to know)
- United States v. Moody, 931 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2019) (defendant must show objective falsity plus subjective intent)