United States v. Joeann Wharton
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18994
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Joeann Wharton received Social Security survivor benefits for her granddaughters but the government investigated in 2012–13 and concluded the girls had not lived with her since 2009.
- Special Agent Mark Gray investigated, interviewed family members, reviewed records, and obtained a search warrant for the Wharton Utrecht Road house while a superseding indictment (including her husband John) was sealed.
- Gray’s warrant affidavit asserted John and Joeann lived together, cited a joint BGE account and joint Dish Network account, and described interviews conducted at the house; a magistrate issued the warrant and agents searched common areas, seizing documents.
- Wharton moved to suppress, arguing under Franks that Gray recklessly omitted material, exculpatory facts showing John lived separately (basement) and lacked access to common areas; the district court held a Franks hearing, found some omissions were reckless but not material, and excluded only Joeann’s second-floor bedroom documents.
- At trial the government admitted evidence from the common areas; a jury convicted Joeann (and John) on conspiracy, false-statement, theft, and embezzlement counts; Wharton appealed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether omissions from the warrant affidavit were material under Franks | Wharton: Gray recklessly omitted facts showing John occupied the basement and lacked access to common areas, so inclusion would defeat probable cause | Government: Affidavit contained unchallenged facts (joint interview, statements they lived together, joint utility/cable accounts) establishing access to common areas; omitted facts are merely relevant, not dispositive | The omissions were not material; correcting the affidavit would still establish probable cause to search common areas; suppression denial affirmed |
| Whether omitted facts undermined the affidavit’s core reliability (like informant reliability) | Wharton: Omissions materially changed the living-arrangement picture | Government: Omitted facts do not discredit the affidavit’s core or its sources | Court: Unlike cases where omissions gutted the affidavit’s core, here the affidavit’s unchallenged facts independently supported probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes standards for challenging warrant affidavits for false statements or omissions)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Lull, 824 F.3d 109 (4th Cir. 2016) (omission undermining informant reliability can be material and invalidate a warrant)
- United States v. Tate, 524 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2008) (omission of unlawfully obtained trash evidence could be material because it would be stricken from affidavit)
- United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297 (4th Cir. 1990) (information is material only if its inclusion would defeat probable cause)