891 F.3d 1072
7th Cir.2018Background
- A confidential informant (CI) told Officer Hronopoulos that William Wheeler had guns in his Chicago apartment; the CI had previously provided reliable leads.
- Officer confirmed the address with the CI, obtained search warrants (one per floor) with assistance from the Cook County State’s Attorney, and brought the CI before a judge.
- Police executed the warrants the same night and seized firearms, ammunition, and heroin.
- Wheeler was criminally charged but acquitted at trial; Wheeler and his wife (Thomas) then sued the city and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment) and a state malicious-prosecution claim.
- At summary judgment the defendants argued there were no genuine factual disputes and that the CI tip established probable cause; plaintiffs instead raised new arguments on appeal (e.g., that the CI did not exist and a Brady claim regarding fingerprints) that were not asserted below.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding the new appellate theories were waived and that probable cause existed based on the CI tip.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of search warrant / probable cause | CI tip was hearsay or (on appeal) CI may not have existed, so warrant/search lacked probable cause | CI tip supported probable cause; the tip was not offered as hearsay to prove truth and the CI’s existence was accepted below | Court: Plaintiffs waived the new contention that the CI did not exist; the warrant was supported by the CI tip and probable cause existed |
| Evidentiary classification of CI tip (hearsay) | CI statements were hearsay and defective for establishing probable cause | Tip was not hearsay in this context because it was not offered to prove truth but to show the basis for officers’ probable-cause determination | Court: District court correctly rejected the hearsay argument under Gates; not a basis to defeat summary judgment |
| Brady claim re: fingerprint evidence | Officers’ failure to procure fingerprint evidence deprived Wheeler of exculpatory evidence (Brady violation) | No Brady claim was pled; plaintiffs did not raise Brady in district court and never requested the evidence during criminal proceedings | Court: Brady argument waived because it was not alleged in amended complaint nor raised below |
| Procedural waiver on appeal | N/A (Plaintiffs seek to raise new factual/legal theories on appeal) | Issues must be raised in district court; new theories on appeal are waived | Court: Affirmed summary judgment; appellate court will not entertain brand-new arguments not presented below |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (principle that informant tips can support probable cause and framework for assessing reliability)
- Valenti v. Lawson, 889 F.3d 427 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Dunn v. Menard, Inc., 880 F.3d 899 (summary judgment standards)
- United Cent. Bank v. Davenport Estate LLC, 815 F.3d 315 (argument not raised below is waived on appeal)
- Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 709 (waiver of appellate arguments not presented to district court)
- Poullard v. McDonald, 829 F.3d 844 (failure to preserve claim below results in waiver)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Brady rule on suppression of exculpatory evidence)
- Saunders-El v. Rohde, 778 F.3d 556 (elements and framework for a Brady claim)