United States v. Daniels
906 F.3d 673
7th Cir.2018Background
- Nov. 2012 bank robbery in Waukegan, IL: teller threatened, robber fled with $4,765; security footage and three employees described clothing, height (~5'3"–5'4"), mask showing bare neck and dark skin.
- Police recovered nearby (≈15 minutes, ~2 blocks away) items: toy gun, Santa hat, Halloween mask, blue jacket, two white gloves, and a black cap with eyeholes.
- FBI testing found male DNA on the black cap and one glove; preliminary database match to Dwayne Daniels (5'4", black male) in custody for an unrelated offense.
- An FBI agent affidavit seeking a warrant for fresh DNA samples described the recovered items as those the robber "wore or used," implying the black cap was seen or captured on video—an implication later shown to be inaccurate.
- Magistrate issued the warrant; further testing confirmed Daniels matched the cap and both gloves. Daniels moved for a Franks hearing, arguing the affidavit materially misstated that witnesses/video showed the black cap being worn; the district court denied the motion but found the affidavit misleading and characterized the error as negligent scrivener’s error. Daniels pleaded guilty reserving appeal on the Franks issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit’s misleading statement about the black cap defeats probable cause for a warrant | Daniels: remove all references to the cap; without cap references probable cause fails | Government: only remove implication that witnesses/video showed the cap; the cap’s presence near other corroborated items supports probable cause | Court: Probable cause remains after excising implication that the cap was observed during the robbery |
| Whether the misleading statement was made knowingly or recklessly (Franks standard) | Daniels: misstatement shows deliberate/reckless intent to overstate connection; subsequent documents differ, suggesting intent | Government: error was negligent scrivener’s mistake; no direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent to deceive | Court: Daniels failed to make a substantial preliminary showing of deliberate or reckless falsity; no Franks hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes right to a hearing when a defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that an affidavit contains deliberate or reckless falsehoods)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances standard)
- United States v. McMurtrey, 704 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2013) (review standards for Franks hearing denials and the difficulty of showing deliberate falsehood)
- United States v. Harris, 464 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2006) (procedure for excising falsehoods or including omitted facts in affidavit when assessing probable cause)
- United States v. Glover, 755 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2014) (evidence required to show an affiant’s state of mind and subjective intent to deceive)