People v. Chambers, 2016 IL 117911 (January). Episode 134 (Duration 8:58)
Defendant should have been granted a Franks Hearing, People v. Gorosteata, 374 Ill. App. 3d 203 (2007) is overruled.
“John Doe” Warrant
This was a “John Doe” warrant, meaning the CI was brought before the judge and swore to the judge in person that he had bought drugs from Defendant in his home.
Search warrants play a big part in Illinois search and seizure jurisprudence.
Defendant filed a motion for a Franks hearing alleging that the officer either knew that the allegations in the complaint were false or that he made the statements with reckless disregard for the truth.
Defendant had affidavit saying he was not at the house when the CI said he bought the drugs. The alleged CI also signed an affidavit saying the police coerced him into identifying the Defendant. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion because the trial court the case law said that a Franks motion cannot be granted under “John Doe” circumstances.
Purpose of Franks Hearing
However, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to adopt this rule. This rule only shields police misconduct such as conspiring with an informant or coercing an informant into making false statements in an affidavit or in testimony to the court.
Such a rule would undermine the purpose of Franks. The purpose of Franks is to provide meaningful, albeit limited, deterrence of and protection against perjurious warrant applications.
How To Get A Franks Hearing
What is required is that the defendant’s preliminary showing be more than a mere request and more than an unsubstantiated denial and certainly something less than proof by a preponderance.
The rule is that when a defendant claims intentional, knowing, or reckless conduct by the affiant officer resulting in the presentation of false information to the issuing judge, the presence of the informant who allegedly provided that information is merely a factor to be considered when deciding whether a substantial preliminary showing has been made.
Follow These Steps
So here are the steps to getting a Franks hearing:
First, the challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine.
Second, there must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth.
Third, those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof” and must “point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false.” The defendant must furnish affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses.
Additionally, if the informant has self identified and the defendant has otherwise sufficiently alleged intentional, knowing, or reckless falsehoods in his Franks motion, whether this individual was the actual informant can be ascertained at an evidentiary hearing and the court does not need to depend on the State’s disclosure of the informant.