United States v. James Arnold
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16100
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- From Nov 2008–Nov 2010 Iowa narcotics investigators collected tips and reports linking James Arnold to methamphetamine manufacture and sales at his Wever, Iowa residence.
- Officer Isaac Skinner applied for a state search warrant in Nov 2010, attaching an affidavit summarizing the multi-year investigation; the warrant was granted and officers found methamphetamine manufacturing evidence and a sawed-off shotgun.
- Arnold was federally indicted for conspiracy to manufacture/distribute ≥50 grams of methamphetamine and possession of a sawed-off shotgun; he moved to suppress the search evidence and sought a Franks hearing to challenge alleged false statements/omissions in the warrant affidavit.
- The district court identified several inaccuracies/omissions in the affidavit but found none made knowingly or recklessly, and concluded the affidavit (corrected for alleged errors) still established probable cause; the court denied the Franks hearing and the suppression motion.
- Arnold entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the suppression denial; the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Arnold) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit contained deliberate or reckless false statements or omissions sufficient to warrant a Franks hearing | Affidavit contained multiple material misrepresentations/omissions (8 specific challenges) made knowingly or recklessly | Discrepancies are minor or not deliberately/recklessly made; many omissions are not required in an affidavit | No abuse of discretion; Arnold failed to make the substantial preliminary showing required for a Franks hearing |
| Materiality of alleged misstatements/omissions to probable cause | Removing false statements and adding omitted facts would defeat probable cause | Even excising alleged falsehoods and adding omissions, the remaining/unchallenged facts establish a fair probability of finding contraband at the residence | Probable cause stands on the untainted portions of the affidavit; Franks hearing unnecessary |
| Allegation that confidential informant was ‘‘working off a charge’’ rendered affidavit misleading | Omission of that fact undermines informant reliability and required disclosure (citing Medina-Reyes) | Medina-Reyes is factually narrow; routine omissions about informant incentives do not automatically make an affidavit misleading | No per se misleading omission here; no unusual coercive arrangement alleged, and probable cause remains |
| Use of district court’s unsworn proffer or extra evidence to support affidavit | Allowing government-only new evidence would be improper and prejudicial | District court relied only on the original affidavit and defendant’s filings; it expressly disclaimed reliance on any unsworn proffer | Court did not rely on extra evidence; argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes requirements for a hearing to challenge affidavit falsehoods/omissions)
- United States v. Mathison, 157 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 1998) (Franks substantial preliminary showing is difficult to meet)
- United States v. Kattaria, 553 F.3d 1171 (8th Cir. 2009) (review of denial of a Franks hearing for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Coleman, 349 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 2003) (minor discrepancies do not establish deliberate or reckless falsehoods under Franks)
- Technical Ordnance, Inc. v. United States, 244 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2001) (affiant not required to include every known fact in an affidavit)
- United States v. Augustine, 663 F.3d 367 (8th Cir. 2011) (probable cause requires a fair probability contraband will be found based on practical common sense)
- United States v. Williams, 477 F.3d 554 (8th Cir. 2007) (omission that an informant was paid or avoided prosecution does not per se render an affidavit misleading)
- United States v. McMurtrey, 704 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2013) (discusses impermissibility of the government bolstering an affidavit post hoc with new, unrebutted evidence)
- United States v. Medina-Reyes, 877 F. Supp. 468 (S.D. Iowa 1995) (distinguishable, involved an unusually coercive informant agreement)