United States v. Tyrice Glover
2014 WL 2747124, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11807, 755 F.3d 811 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An officer's complete omission of known, material adverse credibility information about a confidential informant from a search warrant affidavit undermines a magistrate's probable cause determination and is sufficient to support a reasonable inference of reckless disregard for the truth, thereby requiring a `Franks` hearing to determine if the `Leon` good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies.
Facts:
- On July 23, 2010, confidential informant "Doe" told Chicago Police Officer Jason Brown that a felon known as "T.Y." (later identified as Tyrice Glover) possessed two specific handguns at 905 Kedvale in Chicago.
- Doe stated he had seen the guns inside Glover's house the day before and "many times over the course of the last six weeks," and that Glover needed the guns for a "dope spot" for heroin, was a gang member, and part of a "stick-up crew."
- Officer Brown corroborated several minor facts, including using police records to find Glover's photograph (which Doe identified as "T.Y."), confirming Glover had two felony convictions, and verifying his residence at 905 Kedvale.
- Officer Brown was aware of substantial negative credibility information about Doe, including that Doe had been an informant for six years, had fourteen criminal convictions (four while an informant), was affiliated with a gang, had previously used aliases to deceive police, and expected payment for information.
- Officer Brown's probable cause affidavit submitted to the state court judge completely omitted all of this known adverse credibility information about Doe.
Procedural Posture:
- Chicago Police Officer Jason Brown submitted a probable cause affidavit to a state court judge.
- A state court judge issued a search warrant for Glover's home.
- Law enforcement officers executed the search warrant at Glover's home, finding firearms, heroin, and drug paraphernalia.
- Tyrice Glover was arrested and subsequently charged in federal court with drug and firearm offenses.
- Glover filed a motion in the district court to suppress the evidence seized during the search and requested a `Franks` hearing.
- The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Glover's motion to suppress and his request for a `Franks` hearing.
- Glover entered a conditional plea of guilty to possessing heroin with intent to distribute and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion.
- Glover was sentenced to 90 months in prison and then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an officer's search warrant affidavit, which completely omits known and highly relevant adverse information regarding a confidential informant's credibility, provide an insufficient basis for probable cause and, if so, does such an omission require a `Franks` hearing to assess the applicability of the `Leon` good faith exception?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton
Yes, Officer Brown's affidavit provided an insufficient basis for probable cause because it completely omitted known and highly relevant adverse information about the informant's credibility, and this omission is sufficient to raise an inference of reckless disregard for the truth, entitling Glover to a `Franks` hearing. The court reasoned that under `Illinois v. Gates`'s totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, an informant's reliability, veracity, and basis of knowledge are highly relevant to a probable cause determination. While `United States v. Dismuke` found an affidavit sufficient despite a conclusory statement of reliability, the critical difference here was the complete omission of known, highly relevant, and damaging credibility information (criminal record, gang activity, aliases, payment) which directly impaired the magistrate's neutral role. This omission meant the magistrate had no meaningful opportunity to exercise discretion or draw inferences regarding Doe's credibility, making the minimally corroborated and somewhat vague tip insufficient. However, the court found the affidavit was not so "bare bones" that an officer's reliance on it was objectively unreasonable given existing precedent like `Dismuke`. Nevertheless, the complete omission of known substantial adverse information about an informant's credibility is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a reasonable inference of reckless disregard for the truth, satisfying the "substantial preliminary showing" required for a `Franks v. Delaware` hearing. The district court erred by speculating about innocent explanations for the omissions and by placing the burden on the defendant to disprove them before the hearing, as the officer who signed the affidavit is responsible for its contents. Precedent like `United States v. Taylor` and `United States v. Williams` involved similar omissions but the findings in those cases were made after `Franks` hearings, which were properly held.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent requirements for search warrant affidavits involving confidential informants, particularly concerning the disclosure of credibility information. It reinforces that a magistrate's role as a neutral arbiter is paramount, and officers have a duty to present all known material facts, both inculpatory and exculpatory, that could impact an informant's credibility. The ruling significantly lowers the bar for defendants to obtain a `Franks` hearing by establishing that a complete omission of adverse credibility information alone can create a sufficient inference of recklessness, shifting the burden to the government to explain such omissions. This impacts future cases by potentially increasing the number of `Franks` hearings and compelling law enforcement to be more transparent and thorough in their warrant applications.
