United States v. Gregory
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13577
7th Cir.2015Background
- In early 2011 an anonymous informant (later revealed as Scott Gregory) told DEA Agent Washburn and ISP Inspector Chavira that Cipra, Shannon Gregory, and Konrady ran a large indoor cannabis grow at 1025–1027 Paw Paw Road; the informant provided photographs and detailed first‑hand descriptions.
- Investigators corroborated many details: residence occupants, vehicle makes/colors, prior drug convictions, FOID cards, and high electrical usage on ComEd accounts; ComEd data showed very high monthly kWh for the two residences versus Illinois average.
- Inspector Chavira sought and obtained no‑knock search warrants in March 2011 based on the informant’s tip and corroboration; searches executed March 28, 2011 uncovered a large grow operation and weapons; defendants were arrested and charged federally.
- Defendants moved to suppress, requested a Franks hearing, and sought disclosure of the informant’s identity; initial district court denied disclosure and Franks; defendants pleaded guilty but reserved rights and appealed.
- Seventh Circuit remanded on whether to disclose the informant; after disclosure (Scott Gregory) the district court held a Franks hearing (May 2014), found the informant not credible, credited law enforcement testimony, denied suppression, and applied Leon’s good‑faith exception as an alternative.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: probable cause existed under the totality of circumstances; alleged falsehoods/omissions were not shown to be deliberate or reckless and were not necessary to probable cause; Leon good‑faith doctrine applies if needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for search warrants | Tip corroborated by ISP (residences, cars, prior convictions, ComEd usage, photos) established a fair probability of a grow | Tip stale / photos older than claimed; electricity data incomplete so kWh not indicative | Probable cause existed (totality of circumstances supports warrant) |
| Franks claim re: photo dates | Photo date error was not known/used recklessly by agents | Agents falsified or recklessly misstated photo dates (agent prompted informant to lie) | District court’s credibility findings for agents not clearly erroneous; no deliberate/reckless falsity shown; Franks not met |
| Franks claim re: omission of adverse ComEd data | Investigators did not have neighboring‑home ComEd data when affidavits were prepared; omission not deliberate | Inspector Chavira recklessly omitted comparable nearby usage that would undercut probable cause | No deliberate or reckless omission; district court credited oversight explanation; Franks not met |
| Suppression — good‑faith exception (Leon) | Even if affidavit deficient, officers reasonably relied on magistrate warrant | Evidence should be suppressed if warrant lacked probable cause | Leon good‑faith exception applies; suppression not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Koerth v. United States, 312 F.3d 862 (7th Cir.) (totality factors for informant tips)
- Mitten v. United States, 592 F.3d 767 (7th Cir.) (staleness less critical for ongoing criminal activity)
- Leon v. United States, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (standard for hearing and suppression when affidavit contains false statements or deliberate omissions)
- Roth v. United States, 201 F.3d 888 (7th Cir.) (probable cause standard for warrants)