More Franks?

criminal defense practice areas
Big news coming from the Illinois Supreme Court in the world of criminal law. In People v. Terrill Chambers, decided on January 22, 2016, the Court overruled People v. Gorosteata, an important case regarding criminal defendants’ ability to challenge a warrant application.

Here is a brief synopsis: Franks v. State of Delaware created what is commonly referred to as a Franks Hearing- a limited opportunity for a defendant to challenge or “go behind” the warrant if a defendant could make a substantial preliminary showing that the warrant was based on knowingly false or perjured testimony when sworn to by the affiant. Since a search warrant is presumed valid, in order to even obtain such a hearing a defendant has to present affadavits that show that the information sworn to could not be true, such as affadavits that show the defendant could not have made the transaction or been present at the date, time, and location sworn to in the warrant. Typically, this has been an extrememly high burden which previously was  almost impossible to attack  if the confidential informant himself had been brought before the issuing Jusge and sworn to the information in what is referred to as a “John Doe” warrant.

The overruled case, Gorosteata, created a bright-line rule that the presence of an informant at the ex parte hearing on the warrant application forecloses the possibility of a Franks hearing. Now, the court states “When the 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.” In short, bringing the informant in front of the judge does not automatically prevent the defendant from a hearing on the warrant. In addition to overruling Gorosteata, the court held appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a Franks hearing is de novo. This means that the court will review Franks Hearing appeals with a new slate, without giving deference to the trial court’s decision on the issue.

It will be interesting to see how, or if, this ruling changes warrant applications or the use of confidential informants. If you are the subject of a search warrant and need legal representation, contact us here at LauraLaw.


Comments

More Franks? — 2 Comments

  1. An intriguing discussion is worth comment.
    I do think that you ought to write more on this topic, it might not be a taboo subject but generally people do not discuss these topics.
    To the next! Many thanks!!

  2. Pingback: The First Case Law Update of 2016! - Law Offices of Laura J. Morask

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.