United States v. William Crittenden
16-4480
| 4th Cir. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- William Crittenden, a former doctor and medical director at "Healthy Life" (a pill mill), was indicted for conspiracy and unlawful distribution of controlled substances after a DEA and Baltimore County Police investigation.
- Investigators obtained a search warrant supported by a 20‑page affidavit compiling: multiple confidential‑source reports, undercover visits (four agents), pharmacy reports of suspicious prescriptions, and surveillance showing very high patient volume.
- The affidavit included inaccuracies about the undercover operation (e.g., stating all four agents received narcotics when only two did; misstating a physician’s statements and whether a physical exam occurred) and omitted adverse information about a key confidential source (subject of a fraud probe and allegedly providing false MRI reports).
- Crittenden moved to suppress the seized patient records and sought a Franks hearing, arguing the affidavit contained deliberate or recklessly false statements and misleading omissions material to probable cause.
- The district court found troubling misstatements and omissions but assumed them against the government for materiality analysis; even excluding the undercover-related allegations and the challenged source’s statements, the remaining affidavit materials (other CS reports, pharmacy complaints, surveillance) still established probable cause.
- A jury convicted Crittenden; on appeal the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that Crittenden failed the materiality prong of Franks and thus was not entitled to a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Crittenden) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit contained deliberate or reckless false statements or omissions warranting a Franks hearing | Affidavit contained knowingly or recklessly false statements about undercover visits and omitted material credibility‑undermining facts about a key CS | Any inaccuracies were negligent or innocent mistakes; omissions were not made to mislead | Court assumed misstatements/omissions but did not reach deliberate/reckless finding because materiality failed; no Franks hearing required |
| Whether the alleged falsehoods/omissions were material to the probable cause determination (Franks second prong) | Removing false statements and adding omitted facts would defeat probable cause | Even removing challenged portions, the remaining affidavit (other CS reports, pharmacy tips, surveillance) supplied a fair probability of finding evidence; materiality not met | Held not material: substantial remaining evidence supported probable cause; Franks hearing denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (defendant entitled to hearing only if affidavit contains intentional or reckless falsehoods material to probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances; practical commonsense decision)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (Fourth Amendment rights are personal; standing requires an individual privacy interest)
- United States v. Allen, 631 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 2011) (standards of review for Franks and probable cause)
- United States v. Tate, 524 F.3d 449 (4th Cir. 2008) (omissions are covered by Franks but require substantial preliminary showing of intent to mislead)
- United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297 (4th Cir. 1990) (omission must be such that its inclusion would defeat probable cause)
- United States v. Lull, 824 F.3d 109 (4th Cir. 2016) (where omissions prevent assessment of source veracity, the statement should be excluded from probable cause analysis)
- Doe v. Broderick, 225 F.3d 440 (4th Cir. 2000) (patients have expectation of privacy in medical records)
- Sennett v. United States, 667 F.3d 531 (4th Cir. 2012) (probable cause may be supported by the overall pattern of information even if no single fact suffices)