United States v. Hancock
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23333
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Police obtained a no-knock warrant for the Erickson property after an affidavit by Investigator Chris Drost recounted: (1) Drost’s June 2013 interview of Michael Hancock (aka “Munchy”), (2) detailed information from long-time CI Jeremy Peabody about repeated meth buys and observed guns at the property, (3) text-message corroboration from Sarah Jo Davis’s phone, and (4) Rachelle Lowrie’s report and medical exam documenting a violent sexual assault and theft by Hancock.
- Execution of the warrant recovered a short-barreled shotgun, ammunition, methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and allegedly stolen property.
- Hancock was indicted on possession of a firearm by a felon (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) and possession of an unregistered firearm (26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5845(a)(2), 5861(d)).
- Hancock moved for a Franks hearing, alleging the affidavit omitted Peabody’s criminal convictions and his custody status (which would affect CI credibility); the magistrate found the omission reckless but concluded probable cause would exist anyway (noting Lowrie’s independent corroboration) and recommended denying a Franks hearing. The district court adopted the recommendation.
- Hancock also moved to preclude use of his Colorado felonies as § 922(g)(1) predicates, arguing a Colorado “unconditional” discharge restored his civil rights; the district court held the discharge document did not state restoration of rights on its face. A jury convicted Hancock on both counts; he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Hancock's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omission of CI Peabody’s convictions and custody status required a Franks hearing/suppression | Omission was reckless and material; Franks hearing required | Affidavit contained ample corroboration (Drost interview, texts, Lowrie) so omitted facts would not change probable cause | No Franks hearing; affidavit, viewed in totality, established probable cause |
| Adequacy of probable cause for search warrant | Same as above — affidavit unreliable without omitted CI history | CI’s lengthy firsthand, detailed reports and corroboration made his tip reliable despite omitted convictions | Probable cause upheld based on totality of circumstances and corroborating evidence |
| Whether Colorado “unconditional” discharge restored civil rights such that convictions cannot be § 922(g)(1) predicates under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) | Discharge referencing Colo. statute and constitution implied restoration (right to vote, hold office, bear arms) — Bannings required express firearm reservation | The discharge document’s four corners do not state any restoration; Buchmeier rule applies only when the state affirmatively notifies restoration | Discharge did not restore rights on its face; convictions count as predicates for § 922(g)(1) |
| Whether federal anti-surprise (Buchmeier/§ 921(a)(20)) requires searching beyond the discharge document | Hancock: must read referenced statutes/constitution to determine restoration | Government: inquiry ends at the four corners of the discharge document; no express restoration language present | Court limits inquiry to four corners; no express restoration, so § 921(a)(20) proviso does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (warrant-affidavit challenge standard; hearing required when defendant makes substantial preliminary showing of intentional or reckless falsehoods material to probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Glover, 755 F.3d 811 (7th Cir.) (Franks hearing warranted where informant’s credibility omissions were dispositive)
- United States v. Mullins, 803 F.3d 858 (7th Cir.) (Franks-omission framework and application; distinguishable where corroboration exists)
- United States v. Burnett, 641 F.3d 894 (7th Cir.) (interpretation of § 921(a)(20) and anti-mousetrapping principle)
- Buchmeier v. United States, 581 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. en banc) (state notice restoring civil rights must expressly reserve firearm prohibition to preserve predicate conviction)
- United States v. Glaser, 14 F.3d 1213 (7th Cir.) (Buchmeier rule applies when state gives a formal notice of restoration; otherwise inquiry ends at document)
- United States v. Sutton, 742 F.3d 770 (7th Cir.) (factors for evaluating informant-supplied information)
- United States v. Harris, 464 F.3d 733 (7th Cir.) (procedure for evaluating omitted material and whether probable cause remains)
- United States v. Robinson, 546 F.3d 884 (7th Cir.) (Franks-related standards and review)