United States v. Slizewski
809 F.3d 382
7th Cir.2016Background
- In July 2014 Madison police investigating armed robberies arrested Lance Slizewski and sought a warrant to search his rental car; Detective Joel Peterson prepared the affidavit.
- The affidavit described four recent robberies, surveillance images (one showed a man in a St. Louis Cardinals cap), and that a suspect in one robbery wore gray basketball shoes identified as “Jordans.”
- Affidavit connected Slizewski to the crimes: Sexton (another suspect) had Slizewski’s contact info and called him from jail; officers observed a Cardinals cap and gray basketball shoes in Slizewski’s impounded car; Slizewski’s booking photo was described as possibly mixed race; Slizewski told his girlfriend from jail to retrieve items from the car or his “life is over.”
- A state judge found probable cause and issued the search warrant; officers found a firearm in the trunk and Slizewski (a felon) was charged for possession.
- Slizewski moved to suppress and requested a Franks hearing, alleging five misstatements/omissions in the affidavit (shoes misidentified, hat misattributed, car model differences, booking-photo race mischaracterization, omission of potential parole revocation). The magistrate and district courts denied the request; Slizewski pleaded guilty but reserved appeal on the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Franks hearing was required because the affidavit contained intentional or reckless false statements or material omissions | Slizewski: Affidavit misstated/omitted facts (shoe brand, hat worn during robberies, car model differences, race description, omitted parole-revocation context) that were necessary to probable cause | Government: Any differences were negligent or immaterial; affidavit still contained multiple independent facts supporting probable cause | Denied — no Franks hearing required; alleged errors were not intentional/reckless or material to probable cause |
| Whether misidentification of the hat amounted to a false statement | Slizewski: Peterson implied hat was worn during a robbery | Government: Affidavit accurately stated hat appeared in a surveillance photo taken before the robbery | Held: Not a misstatement; truthful description of photo timing |
| Whether shoe-brand discrepancy justified a Franks hearing | Slizewski: Shoes in car were LeBrons, not Jordans as affidavit said, undermining linkage | Government: No evidence Peterson knew brand; any negligence not enough for Franks | Held: No Franks hearing; affiant’s misidentification (if any) was not knowing/reckless |
| Whether omission of Slizewski’s parole-revocation risk undermined inference from his jail call | Slizewski: Omitted context that could explain “life is over” comment | Government: State judge already knew Slizewski was on probation hold; omission immaterial | Held: Omission irrelevant; probable cause still supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes standard for requiring a hearing when affidavit contains intentional or reckless falsehoods necessary to probable cause)
- United States v. Johnson, 580 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2009) (high bar for Franks hearings; negligence insufficient)
- United States v. Maro, 272 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2001) (Franks hearings are rare)
- United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2000) (allegations that investigators “should have done more” do not satisfy Franks)
- Gutierrez v. Kermon, 722 F.3d 1003 (7th Cir. 2013) (probable cause is a practical, commonsense standard)
- United States v. Hines, 449 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2006) (describing evaluation of probable cause)
Conclusion: The Seventh Circuit affirmed — alleged misstatements/omissions were not shown to be intentional or material, so no Franks hearing or suppression was required.