IL: Franks falsity applies to the officer, not the CI; also, the CI testified before the issuing magistrate, and that bolsters credibility

“The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard of the truth applies only to the affiant—here, Officer Ramirez—and not to any nongovernmental informant like Rodriguez. … What is more, we note that both Officer Ramirez and Rodriguez appeared before the issuing judge, thus providing that court with at least the opportunity to test Rodriguez’s statements. This factor militates against defendant, as does the fact that police did not fabricate Doe’s existence.” People v. Garcia, 2017 IL App (1st) 133398, 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 152 (March 22, 2017).

Defendant was seen walking a few blocks away from the scene of a convenience store shooting. He was sweating on a cold November night. He matched the description broadcast, but the officer didn’t act on it to arrest right away. She went to the store, saw the video, and then put out a BOLO for him with the area last seen. He was found, and merely asked what he was doing, and said he had nothing to do with that shooting when he hadn’t been asked about a shooting. He was taken in for questioning. There was probable cause for taking him in, and his statement is not suppressed. Commonwealth v. Charley, 2017 Mass. App. LEXIS 33 (March 24, 2017).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.