United States v. Gill
3:22-cr-00210
| W.D.N.C. | Jul 20, 2023Background
- Defendant Julian Jared Gill was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) after his April 12, 2022 arrest; law enforcement seized a Blue iPhone 13 from his person.
- Detective Van Almen obtained a state warrant to search that specific Blue iPhone based on an investigation of an April 5, 2022 armed robbery: the victim (McFadden) identified "Julian," provided a 980-number (the First 980 Number) and a photo later matched to Gill.
- At arrest, officers recovered a handgun in a motel room matching the robbery weapon description; a roommate (Lockett) said the gun belonged to Gill. Gill denied the robbery and possession of the gun.
- After the warrant issued, defense produced Detective Richter body-worn camera showing a text exchange on a third party’s phone referencing a different phone number (a 267 area-code number). The phone actually searched (the Blue iPhone) showed a different 980-number (the Second 980 Number).
- Gill moved for a Franks hearing and suppression, arguing the affidavit knowingly or recklessly omitted that he used another phone number (the 267 Number), which he says undermines probable cause.
- The magistrate judge recommended denying the Franks hearing and suppression: Gill failed to show the affiant (Det. Van Almen) knew of or intentionally/recklessly omitted the 267 Number, and inclusion of the omitted information would not have defeated probable cause for searching the seized device.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gill made the substantial preliminary showing required for a Franks evidentiary hearing (intentionality prong) | Gov’t: Gill has not shown Det. Van Almen knew of the 267 Number or intentionally/recklessly omitted it from the affidavit | Gill: The 267 Number was known to investigators (via Richter’s bodycam) and its omission was deliberate or reckless and warrants a Franks hearing | Denied — Gill failed to show the affiant knew of or intentionally/recklessly omitted the 267 Number; collective-knowledge cannot substitute for affiant’s personal knowledge in Franks context |
| Whether the alleged omission was material to probable cause (materiality prong) | Gov’t: Even if omitted, the other facts (victim ID/photo, vehicle links, gun found matching description, and the seized device itself) amply supported probable cause | Gill: Inclusion of the 267 Number would have undermined probable cause to search the Blue iPhone | Denied — inclusion of the omitted info would not have defeated probable cause; the warrant described and authorized search of the specific seized device, and evidence supported a fair probability of finding relevant evidence |
| Whether investigators were required to investigate or corroborate alternative phone numbers before seeking the warrant | Gov’t: No duty to call or otherwise confirm every number; warrant sought authority to search the physical device seized | Gill: Law enforcement should have checked the other numbers or device settings before seeking the warrant | Rejected — court found no legal obligation to perform the suggested extra-step checks and that such omissions were not dispositive of probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes hearing standard for alleged false statements/omissions in warrant affidavits)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule for warrants issued by neutral magistrate)
- United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297 (4th Cir. 1990) (Franks materiality requirement: omission must be necessary to finding of probable cause)
- United States v. Pulley, 987 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2021) (collective-knowledge doctrine cannot satisfy Franks intentionality; affiant’s personal knowledge controls)
- United States v. Clenney, 631 F.3d 658 (4th Cir. 2011) (higher bar for omissions than affirmative false statements in Franks context)
- United States v. Moody, 931 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2019) (context on affiant negligence vs. intentional/reckless omission; commonsense reading of affidavits)
- United States v. Lull, 824 F.3d 109 (4th Cir. 2016) (warrant affidavits construed in commonsense manner)
- United States v. Doyle, 650 F.3d 460 (4th Cir. 2011) (exclusionary rule and good-faith discussion)
- United States v. Allen, 631 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 2011) (Franks and probable cause principles)
- United States v. White, 850 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 2017) (Franks standards restated)
- United States v. Haas, 986 F.3d 467 (4th Cir. 2021) (procedures when Franks threshold is met)
- Ventresca v. New York, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (affidavits drafted in haste are to be read with commonsense)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (exclusionary-rule purposes)