United States v. Tyrice Glover
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11807
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Police officer Jason Brown submitted an affidavit from a confidential informant ("Doe") alleging that defendant Tyrice Glover ("T.Y.") possessed two handguns at 905 Kedvale and was involved in a heroin "dope spot" and gang-related robberies.
- Officer Brown corroborated limited facts: he located Glover’s photo in police records, confirmed Glover’s felony convictions and prior residence at 905 Kedvale, and Doe identified the house in person before the judge.
- The affidavit omitted known, adverse credibility information about Doe: six years as an informant, gang affiliation, 14 convictions (including crimes while acting as an informant), prior use of aliases, and prior payment for tips.
- A warrant issued; officers found firearms, an assault rifle, ammunition, 14 grams of heroin, and drug paraphernalia. Doe was later paid $450 based on the search result.
- Glover moved to suppress and requested a Franks hearing alleging material omission and reckless disregard for the truth; the district court denied both requests. Glover pled guilty preserving his right to appeal the suppression denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for search warrant | Glover: affidavit lacked credibility information about informant, minimal corroboration, insufficient detail and basis of knowledge | Government: affidavit had sufficient corroboration and detail (informant identified house, specific gun descriptions, photo match) | Warrant unsupported: omission of material credibility info deprived magistrate of meaningful neutral review; probable cause insufficient |
| Good-faith exception (Leon) — facially "bare bones" | Glover: affidavit was so deficient that officers’ reliance was unreasonable | Government: affidavit had enough detail; similar to prior cases found sufficient | Court: affidavit not so "bare bones" that good-faith fails on that ground |
| Good-faith exception — recklessness/deliberate omission | Glover: omission of known adverse informant facts shows reckless or deliberate disregard for truth | Government: omissions could be explained (e.g., protecting identity) and later provided to defense | Court: omission of known, damaging credibility info permits reasonable inference of recklessness; defendant entitled to Franks hearing |
| Entitlement to Franks hearing | Glover: preliminary showing met (material omission + inference of reckless omission) | Government: no direct evidence officer acted recklessly; affidavit possibly prepared by prosecutor | Held: district court erred denying Franks hearing; remand for hearing to test officer’s state of mind |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (right to hearing when affidavit contains material falsehoods or omissions with reckless or deliberate intent)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality-of-the-circumstances test for informant-based probable cause)
- United States v. Dismuke, 593 F.3d 582 (7th Cir.) (close sufficiency decision on similar facts)
- United States v. Taylor, 471 F.3d 832 (7th Cir.) (omission of informant background held non-deceptive after Franks hearing)
- Owens v. United States, 387 F.3d 607 (7th Cir.) (affidavit so inadequate that good-faith exception did not apply)
- United States v. Koerth, 312 F.3d 862 (7th Cir.) (insufficient corroboration of conclusory informant assertions)