W.D.Okla.: That multiple names surfaced in robbery investigation wasn’t material where one man who knew def. ID’ed him

Callers to a crime tip line ID’ed multiple suspects as a bank robber, but one said he’d known defendant for 10 years and he was sure it was him. Omitting the others was not material for Franks purposes. United States v. Richardson, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178751 (W.D. Okla. December 20, 2013):

Here, even were the Court to accept that the omitted information–that other callers identified potential suspects other than Defendant–was material, Defendant cannot demonstrate that adding that information to the application for search warrant would have prevented a finding of probable cause. The affidavit noted the caller recognized the suspect from the clothes he was wearing, his face in the surveillance photo, the way he was holding his telephone, and a unique scar on his right hand. Following that call, the caller was interviewed by the FBI and shown surveillance photos from the September 21, 2013, casing of the Belle Isle Arvest Bank; the September 21, 2013, robbery of the Arvest Bank; and the robbery of the Bank of Oklahoma. The caller identified Defendant as the bank robber and indicated he had known him for approximately ten years. The caller also explained to the FBI that he knew of three additional people who recognized Defendant as the bank robber from the Bank of Oklahoma robbery. Finally, the caller provided information that the Defendant always had a red and black cell phone; that he had a scar on his right hand; and that the brown hoodie seen at the Bank of Oklahoma robbery is the same hoodie worn by the female during the casing. The caller also identified the multi-colored pants worn by the female and provided information as to where and when these clothes were obtained, as well as the gray Starter sweatpants the robber was wearing. The caller also identified Defendant’s address as being an apartment. The FBI agent then confirmed that the apartment was rented by Defendant’s girlfriend or wife, and that Defendant’s car was parked in the apartment lot on October 30th.

Thus, the Court finds it clear that the search warrant was supported by an affidavit which demonstrated probable cause, and that the omission of other callers to the FBI’s tip line identifying suspects other than Defendant does not undermine that determination.