United States v. Edward White, 673 F. App'x 546

Background

Police received a tip from an acquaintance (an informant called “J. Doe”) that Edward White, a convicted felon, kept a handgun in his home; the informant sought leniency on a pending charge.
Officer Michael O’Connor drafted and signed an affidavit for a search warrant reporting the informant’s first‑hand, recent observations of White retrieving a handgun; the informant and officer both signed the affidavit.
A state judge (Judge Chevere) issued the warrant after O’Connor brought the informant to the judge; the judge testified she customarily reviews an informant’s criminal history from a file folder and questions the informant under oath.
The executed search recovered a 9mm pistol, ammunition, marijuana, and cocaine; White was charged in federal court with being a felon in possession and possession with intent to distribute.
At a Franks hearing, the government produced the informant’s criminal history (including an arrest the day before the warrant) that was not disclosed in the affidavit; White argued O’Connor intentionally or recklessly omitted that information and the informant’s motive for leniency.
The district court denied suppression, finding White failed to prove intentional or reckless omission; White pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling and was sentenced to concurrent 60‑month terms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether O’Connor knowingly or recklessly omitted material information from the warrant affidavit under Franks	White: O’Connor deliberately or recklessly omitted the informant’s recent arrest and motive for leniency to mislead the issuing judge	Government/O’Connor: He provided the informant in court and brought the informant’s records to the judge; no intent to deceive	Court: No Franks violation — White failed to prove intentional or reckless omission
Whether the omitted information was material to probable cause (Franks second prong)	White: The informant’s criminal history and motive would undermine credibility and thus probable cause	Government: Affidavit still established probable cause via detailed, recent first‑hand observations and corroboration	Court: Did not reach materiality independently because Franks’ intent prong failed; probable cause would survive plain‑error review
Whether the judge was deprived of information necessary to assess credibility	White: The judge did not learn of the informant’s arrest/motive because it was not in the affidavit and she did not sufficiently question him	Government: The informant appeared under oath and the judge customarily reviews informant records; presenting him allowed the judge to probe credibility	Court: Presentation of the informant and delivery of records to the judge support finding no intent to mislead
Whether a facial probable‑cause challenge to the affidavit is reviewable on appeal	White: Even without Franks, the affidavit lacked probable cause on its face	Government: Argument waived because not raised below	Court: Waived; alternatively, affidavit contained sufficient probable cause if reviewed for plain error

Key Cases Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes burden and standard for challenging a warrant affidavit based on alleged omissions or false statements)
United States v. Gregory, 795 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2015) (Franks intent standard discussed)
United States v. Williams, 718 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2013) (presence of informant before issuing judge can bear on credibility inquiry)
United States v. Sutton, 742 F.3d 770 (7th Cir. 2014) (corroboration of an informant’s tip supports probable cause)
United States v. Daniels, 803 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2015) (failure to raise a suppression argument below forfeits appellate review)
United States v. Figueroa, 622 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2010) (same waiver/forfeiture principles)
United States v. Murdock, 491 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2007) (procedural rule that suppression issues not raised below are forfeited on appeal)

AFFIRMED.