604 F. App'x 424
6th Cir.2015Background
- Pierre Colquitt was indicted on drug- and firearm-related federal charges; he waived a jury and was convicted after a bench trial; sentence 132 months.
- Police obtained state search warrants for Colquitt’s residence at 826 W. Pleasant St. based on an affidavit by Detective Keri Frasco describing multiple controlled heroin buys from Colquitt or his partner LaTorya Bibbs.
- The affidavit recited five controlled purchases (March–May 2009), surveillance observations, CI reliability, and an asserted prior conviction for drug trafficking in July 1998.
- At a suppression hearing, it emerged the affidavit misstated two facts: (1) the April 22, 2009 buy actually occurred in a vehicle near the CI’s house (not inside 826 Pleasant), and (2) the July 1998 trafficking charge had been dismissed.
- Det. Frasco testified she had the criminal history when drafting the affidavit and said the errors resulted from copying/pasting and a case-number mix-up; the district court found the mistakes negligent, not deliberate or reckless.
- The district court denied the motion to suppress, concluding (a) Colquitt failed to make the Franks showing of deliberate or reckless falsity, and (b) even excluding the false statements the affidavit still established probable cause. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Colquitt's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affiant knowingly or recklessly included false statements in the warrant affidavit (Franks standard) | Affidavit contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods: misdescribed April 22 buy as inside the house and falsely asserted a 1998 trafficking conviction | Errors were inadvertent/negligent (copy-paste and case-number mix-up); no deliberate or reckless intent | Court: Affiant acted negligently, not knowingly or with reckless disregard; Franks showing not met |
| Whether, setting aside false statements, affidavit still established probable cause for search warrant | False statements were material and necessary; suppression required if removed | Even excluding the false statements, remaining facts (multiple recent buys, CI reliability, surveillance) established probable cause | Court: Probable cause would remain without challenged statements; warrant valid |
| Whether district court needed a full Franks hearing on intent given the record | Colquitt sought Franks hearing to probe deliberate falsity | Government contended no deliberate falsity; limited hearing on deliberateness sufficed | Court: Limited hearing and credibility findings were adequate; no reversible error |
| Challenge to CI reliability based on alleged phone-disconnection for May 27 buy | Colquitt argued CI could not have called Bibbs as alleged | Government pointed out defense did not develop this argument at suppression and affidavit did not specify the number | Court: Issue abandoned below; not addressed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (affiant must have knowingly or recklessly included false statements to trigger suppression inquiry)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (affidavits tested in commonsense fashion)
- United States v. Brown, 732 F.3d 569 (6th Cir.) (probable cause can survive removal of false statements)
- United States v. Archibald, 685 F.3d 553 (6th Cir.) (recency of buys supports non-staleness/probable cause)
- United States v. Moore, 661 F.3d 309 (6th Cir.) (nexus between observed criminal activity and place to be searched)
- United States v. Beals, 698 F.3d 248 (6th Cir.) (probable cause standard under Gates)