CA7: Omission of snitch’s criminal history wasn’t material compared to the detail

Omission of the CI’s criminal history and that he was already in trouble with the law wasn’t material here for Franks purposes. The detail overcame it. United States v. Hecke, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 19836 (7th Cir. Aug. 6, 2025):

We came to the same conclusion in Hancock. 844 F.3d at 709-10. There, the investigator also left out details about the informant’s criminal record in the warrant affidavit. Id. at 706. Although the magistrate judge agreed with the defendant that the omission was reckless, the judge concluded that probable cause would exist even if the omitted facts had been incorporated in the affidavit. Id. at 706-07. In doing so, the court emphasized that, given the informant’s “long-term, intertwined history as both a criminal and a snitch, a court considering the reliability of his information would have to be skeptical but receptive.” Id. at 708. Furthermore, the informant had provided a “lengthy, richly detailed, first-hand report” of the defendant’s activities, which was corroborated by text messages, a separate report of assault to the police, and the defendant’s own prior statements to an investigator. Id. at 708-09.

Because we encounter similar facts here, we likewise affirm the district court’s denial of Hecke’s request for a Franks hearing. The CI, whose information Detective Compton relied on for his warrant affidavits, had fresh and firsthand knowledge of Hecke’s drug activities, having purchased multiple pounds of methamphetamine directly from Hecke himself. And, as in Bradford and Hancock, the CI’s descriptions of his dealings with Hecke were quite detailed. The CI offered Hecke’s street address, cell phone number, and vehicle details, as well as coded text messages regarding drug purchases that the CI deciphered for Detective Compton. The CI further admitted to purchasing varying quantities of methamphetamine from Hecke at certain prices and provided a specific description of how Hecke delivered the drugs: “vacuumed [sic] sealed, wrapped in black tape, covered with a red grease, then wrapped in cellophane.” The “considerable detail” in these descriptions “bolsters [the CI’s] credibility.” United States v. Taylor, 471 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 2006). That the police independently corroborated the information through surveillance only reinforces this point. See Bradford, 905 F.3d at 504; Hancock, 844 F.3d at 709.