United States v. Tanguay, 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Tanguay, 1st Cir. (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-tanguay-1st-cir-2015 1/22

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1174

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J ONATHAN TANGUAY,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF NEW HAMPSHI RE

[ Hon. J oseph N. Lapl ant e, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Bar r on, Sel ya and St ahl ,Ci r cui t J udges.

J . Mar t i n Ri chey, Federal Def ender Of f i ce, f or appel l ant .Set h R. Af r ame, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h whom

J ohn P. Kacavas, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

May 22, 2015



SELYA, Circuit Judge. I t i s common gr ound t hat a pol i ce

of f i cer seeki ng t o obt ai n a sear ch war r ant shoul d i ncl ude i n t he

af f i davi t accompanyi ng t he warr ant appl i cat i on any f act s known t o

her t hat ar e mat er i al t o t he exi st ence vel non of pr obabl e cause.

See Uni t ed St at es v. St ewar t , 337 F. 3d 103, 107 ( 1st Ci r . ) , as

amended ( Oct . 14, 2003) . Under some l i mi t ed ci r cumst ances,

however , t he of f i cer ' s dut y may be br oader : she may be obl i ged to

i nqui r e f ur t her i n or der t o di spel ser i ous doubt s about ei t her t he

cr edi bi l i t y of an i nf or mant upon whomshe r el i es or t he ver aci t y of

t he al l egat i ons under l yi ng the at t empt ed showi ng of pr obabl e cause.

Thi s dut y of f ur t her i nqui r y i s not wel l underst ood, and t he cour t

bel ow r ul ed cat egor i cal l y t hat no such dut y ever exi st s. Because

t hi s st at ement of t he l aw i s i nsuf f i ci ent l y nuanced, we remand f or

f ur t her f actf i ndi ng consi st ent wi t h t hi s opi ni on.

I. BACKGROUND

We br i ef l y rehear se t he f act s as suppor t abl y f ound by t he

di st r i ct cour t , al ong wi t h t he t r avel of t he case. The r eader who

hunger s f or mor e exeget i c det ai l may wi sh t o consul t t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s compr ehensi ve account . See Uni t ed St ates v. Tanguay, 907

F. Supp. 2d 165, 167- 76 ( D. N. H. 2012) .

I n Febr uar y of 2010, t he Conway pol i ce depar t ment

r ecei ved an e- mai l , ost ensi bl y f r om"J i mGar r ol d, " r el at i ng t hat he

had seen chi l d pornogr aphy on t he l apt op comput er of " J ohn

Tanguway. " The e- mai l descr i bed "Tanguway" as an emer gency medi cal

- 2-



t echni ci an wi t h a l ocal ambul ance ser vi ce and i ndi cat ed that t he

chi l d pornogr aphy had been obser ved dur i ng a sexual encount er a f ew

days ear l i er . Thi s e- mai l ser ved t o dr aw t he at t ent i on of t he

pol i ce t o def endant - appel l ant J onat han Tanguay, a sel ect man i n t he

near by t own of Bar t l et t .

A New Hampshi r e st ate t r ooper , Sgt . Car r i e Nol et , t ook

char ge of t he ensui ng i nvest i gat i on. Af t er sear chi ng wi t hout

success f or a J i m Gar r ol d, Nol et cal l ed t he t el ephone number

pr ovi ded i n t he e- mai l . A voi cemai l message i dent i f i ed t he owner

of t he t el ephone as J osh Wi ggi n. Nol et t hen asked Sgt . Al an

Br oyer , a Conway pol i ce of f i cer , whether he knew anyone by t hat

name. Br oyer r esponded t hat Wi ggi n was known as a "pol i ce groupi e"

who was "qui r ky, " " t r oubl ed" i n hi s t een year s, and had a hi st or y

of sui ci dal i deat i on. Br oyer al so comment ed t hat Wi ggi n had

exper i enced "a f ew scr apes" wi t h t he l aw, speci f i cal l y ment i oni ng

t hat Wi ggi n had been convi ct ed of ut t er i ng a f al se pr escr i pt i on ( he

had al t er ed t he number of Vi codi n pi l l s on a l egi t i mat e

pr escr i pt i on f r om30 t o 80 bef or e pr esent i ng t he pr escr i pt i on t o a

phar maci st ) . Nol et di d not ask Br oyer f or mor e det ai l s nor di d she

make any ef f or t t o f i nd out what ot her "scr apes" Wi ggi n may have

had.

Nol et pr oceeded t o cont act Wi ggi n ( a 28- year - ol d Conway

r esi dent ) . He admi t t ed havi ng sent t he accusat or y e- mai l and

agr eed t o an i nt er vi ew. Dur i ng t hi s i nt er vi ew, Wi ggi n di scl osed

- 3-



t hat he and t he appel l ant had mai nt ai ned a casual sexual

r el at i onshi p, of f and on, si nce Wi ggi n' s t eenage year s. He added

t hat , on a recent eveni ng, he had gone to the appel l ant ' s home f or

t hat pur pose. When he wal ked i n, t he appel l ant was wat chi ng a

por nogr aphi c vi deo on hi s l apt op. Wi ggi n descr i bed t he subj ect s of

t hi s vi deo as boys of "maybe ei ght , t hi r t een, f i f t een, si xt een. " 1

He al so repor t ed seei ng t humbnai l pr evi ews of a "bunch of pi ct ur es"

and t hr ee or f our vi deos depi ct i ng chi l dr en engagi ng i n sex act s

wi t h adul t s.

About a week af t er t he i nt er vi ew, Nol et appl i ed f or and

obt ai ned a war r ant t o sear ch t he appel l ant ' s home, vehi cl e, and

wor kpl ace f or comput er syst ems. I n t he af f i davi t suppor t i ng t he

warr ant appl i cat i on, Nol et communi cated t he subst ance of Wi ggi n' s

i nt er vi ew, emphasi zi ng t hat Wi ggi n had come f orward despi t e t he

pot ent i al embar r assment of havi ng hi s sexual i nt er est i n men

r eveal ed t o hi s par ent s and gi r l f r i end. The af f i davi t di d not

cont ai n any of t he i nf or mat i on t hat Nol et had l earned f r om Br oyer

r egar di ng Wi ggi n' s hi st or y and r eput at i on. Nor di d she

i ncorporat e t he t ypewr i t t en notes t hat Wi ggi n had pr epared and

br ought t o t he i nt er vi ew. See supr a not e 1.

1 Wi ggi n had pr epared typewr i t t en notes i n advance of t hei nt er vi ew and br ought t hose not es wi t h hi m. The not es i ndi cat edt hat t he vi deo depi ct ed "young man or t een pornogr aphy. " Nol etr et ai ned Wi ggi n' s not es af t er t he i nt er vi ew ended.

- 4-



A st at e j udge i ssued t he war r ant . Dur i ng t he sear ch, t he

pol i ce sei zed a comput er , hard dr i ve, and compact di sc t hat wer e

f ound t o cont ai n a pr of usi on of sexual l y expl i ci t i mages and vi deos

depi ct i ng mi nor s.

A f eder al i ndi ct ment f ol l owed char gi ng t he appel l ant wi t h

a si ngl e count of possessi on of chi l d por nogr aphy. See 18 U. S. C.

§ 2252A( a) ( 5) ( B) . The appel l ant moved f or an evi dent i ar y hear i ng,

see Fr anks v. Del aware, 438 U. S. 154, 155- 56 ( 1978) , and t o

suppr ess t he evi dence sei zed dur i ng t he sear ch. He assert ed t hat

Nol et had ei t her del i ber at el y or r eckl essl y omi t t ed mat er i al

i nf or mat i on f r om her af f i davi t .

The di st r i ct cour t convened what amount ed t o a Fr anks

hear i ng at whi ch Nol et t est i f i ed. The cour t r eser ved deci si on and

subsequent l y f i l ed a wr i t t en r escr i pt denyi ng t he mot i on t o

suppr ess. The cour t concl uded t hat Nol et had " r eckl essl y —i f not

i nt ent i onal l y —" omi t t ed f r om her af f i davi t t hr ee cl ust er s of

r el evant i nf ormat i on known t o her at t he t i me she sought t he

war r ant : Wi ggi n' s pr i or convi cti on f or f al si f yi ng a pr escr i pt i on,

a cr i me of di shonest y; Wi ggi n' s r eput at i on among l ocal pol i ce as

"t r oubl ed, " " sui ci dal , " " qui r ky, " and a "pol i ce gr oupi e, " whi ch t he

di st r i ct cour t sai d suggest ed a hi st or y of ment al i nst abi l i t y and

a wi l l i ngness t o compr omi se onesel f t o i mpr ess t he pol i ce; and t he

f act t hat Wi ggi n' s i nt er vi ew st at ement — t hat t he appel l ant was

vi ewi ng a por nogr aphi c vi deo depi ct i ng chi l dr en as young as ei ght

- 5-



year s of age when Wi ggi n ar r i ved — ar guabl y conf l i ct ed wi t h

Wi ggi n' s t yped not es descr i bi ng t he subj ect s of t hat vi deo as young

men or t eens. Tanguay, 907 F. Supp. 2d at 177- 79. But t hese t hr ee

cl ust er s of omi t t ed i nf or mat i on, t he cour t hel d, di d not r equi r e

suppr essi on: t her e woul d have been pr obabl e cause t o aut hor i ze t he

sear ch even i f t he af f i davi t had i ncl uded t he omi t t ed f act s. See

i d. at 186.

The appel l ant had a f al l back posi t i on: he ar gued t hat

Nol et ' s af f i davi t was def i ci ent because she had negl ect ed t o make

any i nqui r y i nt o t he concer ns voi ced t o her by Br oyer . Had such an

i nqui r y been mount ed, Nol et concei vabl y woul d have di scover ed t hat

one of Wi ggi n' s pr i or "scr apes" was a j uveni l e convi ct i on f or

maki ng a f al se r epor t t o t he Conway pol i ce. That convi ct i on

st emmed f r omWi ggi n' s cl ai m t hat he had been shot i n t he l eg by an

uni dent i f i ed sni per when, i n f act , he had shot hi msel f t o see what

i t f el t l i ke. Because such a convi ct i on was f or a cr i me of

di shonest y, t he appel l ant assert ed, di scl osi ng i t woul d have cast

gr ave doubt on Wi ggi n' s cr edi bi l i t y and, t hus, under mi ned any

showi ng of pr obabl e cause.

The di st r i ct cour t r ej ect ed t hi s pl ai nt as wel l . I n

doi ng so, t he cour t r el i ed on t he f act t hat Nol et di d not know of

t he f al se r epor t convi ct i on at t he t i me she execut ed t he af f i davi t .

See i d. at 182. Si nce Nol et had no dut y as a mat t er of l aw t o

- 6-



i nqui r e f ur t her , t he cour t r easoned, t he f al se r epor t convi ct i on

f or med no par t of t he Franks cal cul us. See i d. at 182- 83.

I n due cour se, a j ur y convi ct ed t he appel l ant . The

di st r i ct cour t sent enced hi m t o an 84- mont h t er m of i mmur ement .

Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed.

II. ANALYSIS

The appel l ant chal l enges t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of

hi s mot i on t o suppr ess on t wo gr ounds. Fi r st , he says t hat when

Nol et ' s af f i davi t i s r ef or med t o i ncl ude t he mat er i al t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t f ound i nt ent i onal l y or r eckl essl y omi t t ed, t he

r ef or med af f i davi t no l onger suppor t s a f i ndi ng of pr obabl e cause.

Second, he cont est s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s cat egor i cal r ul i ng t hat

t he Franks doct r i ne i s never i mpl i cat ed by t he omi ssi on f r om a

war r ant af f i davi t of f act s unknown t o the af f i ant at t he t i me of

t he appl i cat i on.

The st ar t i ng poi nt f or t he consi derat i on of bot h of t hese

cl ai ms of er r or i s t he same. I n Fr anks, t he Supr eme Cour t

est abl i shed t hat , under t he Four t h and Four t eent h Amendment s, a

def endant i s ent i t l ed t o an evi dent i ar y hear i ng t o t est t he

ver aci t y of a war r ant af f i davi t i f he can make a subst ant i al

showi ng t hat t he af f i ant i nt ent i onal l y or wi t h r eckl ess di sr egar d

f or t he t r ut h i ncl uded a f al se st at ement i n t he af f i davi t , whi ch

st atement was necessary t o t he f i ndi ng of pr obabl e cause. See 438

U. S. at 155- 56. Suppr essi on of t he evi dence sei zed i s j ust i f i ed

- 7-



i f , at such a hear i ng, t he def endant pr oves i nt ent i onal or r eckl ess

f al sehood by pr eponder ant evi dence and t he af f i davi t ' s cr edi t wor t hy

aver ment s ar e i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause. See i d. at

156.

Mat er i al omi ssi ons f r om a war r ant af f i davi t al so may

f ur ni sh t he basi s f or a successf ul Franks chal l enge. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Hadf i el d, 918 F. 2d 987, 992 ( 1st Ci r . 1990) . The

r equi r ed showi ng i s t wo- f ol d: f i r st , t he omi ssi on must have been

ei t her i nt ent i onal or r eckl ess; and second, t he omi t t ed

i nf or mat i on, i f i ncor por at ed i nt o t he af f i davi t , must be suf f i ci ent

t o vi t i at e pr obabl e cause. See Uni t ed St at es v. Cast i l l o, 287 F. 3d

21, 25 & n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Tat e, 524

F. 3d 449, 456- 57 ( 4t h Ci r . 2008) ( "A ' l i t er al l y t r ue' af f i davi t

. . . can be i nt ent i onal l y mi sl eadi ng i f i t del i ber at el y omi t t ed

mat er i al f act s whi ch, when i ncl uded, woul d def eat t he pr obabl e

cause showi ng and t hus r ender f al se t he or i gi nal ' l i t er al l y t r ue'

af f i davi t . " ) . Because t her e i s no r equi r ement t hat ever y shr ed of

known i nf or mat i on be i ncl uded i n a war r ant af f i davi t , t he omi ssi on

of a par t i cul ar det ai l , wi t hout mor e, i s not enough t o sat i sf y the

mens r ea el ement of t he Fr anks t est . See Uni t ed St ates v. Col kl ey,

899 F. 2d 297, 300- 01 ( 4t h Ci r . 1990) . Rat her , an omi ssi on t r i gger s

t he excl usi onar y r ul e onl y i f i t i s "desi gned t o mi sl ead, or

. . . made i n r eckl ess di sr egar d of whet her [ i t ] woul d mi sl ead, t he

- 8-



magi st r at e" i n hi s appr ai sal of t he af f i davi t . I d. at 301

( emphasi s omi t t ed) .

Reckl essness may be i nf er r ed di r ect l y f r om t he f act of

omi ssi on onl y i f "t he omi t t ed i nf or mat i on was cri t i cal t o t he

pr obabl e cause det er mi nat i on. " Bur ke v. Town of Wal pol e, 405 F. 3d

66, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( emphasi s suppl i ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k

omi t t ed) . Negl i gent omi ssi ons —even negl i gent omi ssi ons of hi ghl y

pr obat i ve i nf or mat i on — do not sati sf y t hi s st r i ct st andar d. See

Franks, 438 U. S. at 171; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Mel vi n, 596 F. 2d

492, 499- 500 ( 1st Ci r . 1979) ( af f i r mi ng f i ndi ng t hat omi ssi on of

key wi t ness' s r ecant at i on was mer el y negl i gent , not r eckl ess,

because of af f i ant ' s good- f ai t h bel i ef t hat r ecant at i on was

i ncr edi bl e) .

A. The Reformed Affidavit.

Agai nst t hi s backdr op, we t ur n t o t he appel l ant ' s i ni t i al

cl ai m of er r or . Nei t her par t y cont est s t he soundness of t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s pl ai nl y suppor t abl e f i ndi ng t hat Nol et r eckl essl y

omi t t ed f r omher af f i davi t t he t hr ee cl ust er s of i nf or mat i on l i mned

above. The appel l ant nonet hel ess ar gues that t he cour t mi sj udged

t he wei ght of t hose omi t t ed f act s. As he sees i t , a r ef or med

af f i davi t t hat i ncl udes t hose f act s f al l s shor t of establ i shi ng

pr obabl e cause.

We begi n wi t h t he Four t h Amendment ' s command t hat "no

Warr ant s shal l i ssue, but upon pr obabl e cause, support ed by Oath or

- 9-



af f i r mat i on, and par t i cul ar l y descr i bi ng t he pl ace t o be sear ched. "

U. S. Const . amend. I V. As a gener al mat t er , a di st r i ct cour t

shoul d pay gr eat r espect t o the i ssui ng magi st r at e' s det er mi nat i on

of pr obabl e cause. See I l l i noi s v. Gat es, 462 U. S. 213, 236

( 1983) . Wher e r el evant i nf or mat i on has been wi t hhel d f r om t he

magi st r at e, however , t he di st r i ct cour t must pr obe t he exi st ence of

pr obabl e cause anew. See Uni t ed St ates v. Gi f f ord, 727 F. 3d 92, 99

( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( ci t i ng Bur ke, 405 F. 3d at 82) . Our r evi ew of t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s own pr obabl e cause det er mi nat i on i s de novo. See

Or nel as v. Uni t ed St at es, 517 U. S. 690, 699 ( 1996) ; Gi f f or d, 727

F. 3d at 99. Fi ndi ngs of f act , t hough, ar e r evi ewed onl y f or cl ear

er r or . See Or nel as, 517 U. S. at 699.

I n gi vi ng ef f ect t o t he Four t h Amendment ' s commands, t he

pr i nci pal t ask i s " t o make a pr act i cal , common- sense deci si on

whet her , gi ven al l t he ci r cumst ances set f or t h i n t he af f i davi t

bef or e [ us] , i ncl udi ng t he ver aci t y and basi s of knowl edge of

per sons suppl yi ng hear say i nf or mat i on, t her e i s a f ai r pr obabi l i t y

t hat cont r aband or evi dence of a cr i me wi l l be f ound i n a

par t i cul ar pl ace. " Gat es, 462 U. S. at 238 ( i nt er nal quot at i on

marks omi t t ed) ; see Uni t ed St ates v. Schaef er , 87 F. 3d 562, 565

( 1st Ci r . 1996) ( "Probabl e cause exi st s when ' t he af f i davi t upon

whi ch a warr ant i s f ounded demonst r ates i n some t r ust wor t hy f ashi on

t he l i kel i hood that an of f ense has been commi t t ed and t hat t her e i s

sound r eason t o bel i eve t hat a par t i cul ar sear ch wi l l t ur n up

- 10-



evi dence of i t . ' " ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Agui r r e, 839 F. 2d 854,

857- 58 ( 1st Ci r . 1988) ) ) . Per f or mance of t hi s task must t ake

account of t he t ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances. See Gat es, 462 U. S.

at 238. Wi t hi n t hi s r ubr i c, t he st at ement s of a l aw- abi di ng

eyewi t ness t o a cr i me ar e gener al l y consi der ed r el i abl e wi t hout

f ur t her cor r obor at i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Bl ount , 123 F. 3d 831,

835- 36 ( 5t h Ci r . 1997) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Campbel l , 732

F. 2d 1017, 1019 ( 1st Ci r . 1984) .

Our r evi ew of t he ent i r e af f i davi t , suppl ement ed onl y by

t he t hr ee r eckl essl y omi t t ed cl ust er s of i nf or mat i on, suppor t s t he

concl usi on t hat pr obabl e cause exi st ed t o sear ch t he appel l ant ' s

home. The most t r enchant of t he omi t t ed f act s — Wi ggi n' s

convi cti on f or ut t er i ng a f al se pr escr i pt i on — i s sur el y r el evant

t o t he deci si onal cal cul us. But t he commi ssi on of a past cr i me

does not necessar i l y under cut a per son' s ver aci t y. See Uni t ed

St ates v. Rumney, 867 F. 2d 714, 720- 21 ( 1st Ci r . 1989) . Even a

pr i or convi ct i on f or a cr i me of di shonest y i s not al ways

di sposi t i ve of a wi t ness' s r el i abi l i t y. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es

v. Mel i ng, 47 F. 3d 1546, 1554- 55 ( 9t h Ci r . 1995) . Her e, we do not

t hi nk t hat t he cour t er r ed i n ascri bi ng such l i mi t ed si gni f i cance

t o t he al t er ed pr escr i pt i on convi ct i on. Af t er al l , i t i s not

unr easonabl e t o thi nk t hat a wi l l i ngness t o l i e t o f eed a dr ug

addi cti on i s mat er i al l y di f f er ent t han a wi l l i ngness to l evel f al se

accusat i ons agai nst a thi r d par t y.

- 11-



To be sure, t he second cl ust er of omi t t ed i nf or mat i on,

i ncl udi ng Wi ggi n' s hi st or y of ment al i nst abi l i t y and hi s r eput at i on

as a "pol i ce gr oupi e, " cal l s f or some degr ee of i ncr eased

skept i ci sm. But a f act f i nder mi ght r easonabl y t hi nk t hat t hese

bl ack mar ks agai nst Wi ggi n' s credi bi l i t y, l i ke hi s al t er ed

pr escr i pt i on convi ct i on, ar e di mi ni shed i n i mpor t ance i n l i ght of

count er vai l i ng i ndi ci a of t r ut hf ul ness. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Reeves, 210 F. 3d 1041, 1045 ( 9t h Ci r . 2000) . An i nf ormant ' s

t r ust wor t hi ness may be enhanced i n a number of ways, i ncl udi ng hi s

wi l l i ngness to reveal hi s i dent i t y, t he l evel of det ai l i n hi s

account , t he basi s of hi s knowl edge, and t he extent t o whi ch hi s

st atement s ar e agai nst hi s i nt er est . See 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Search

& Sei zure § 3. 3( c) - ( e) ( 5t h ed. 2012 & Supp. 2015) . A number of

such f act or s bol st er t he di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat t he

essence of Wi ggi n' s account was wor t hy of cr edence. Wi ggi n was

wi l l i ng t o be i dent i f i ed despi t e hi s embar r assment about t he

pot ent i al r evel at i on of hi s sexual or i ent at i on t o hi s l oved ones;

he candi dl y admi t t ed t hat t here mi ght be compr omi si ng pi ct ur es of

hi mi n t he appel l ant ' s possessi on ( and, t hus, l i kel y t o sur f ace i n

t he sear ch) ; and t he r ecor d cont ai ns no cr edi bl e suggest i on of any

ul t er i or mot i ve f or r epor t i ng t he cri me. Al l of t hese ar e posi t i ve

f act or s i n assessi ng Wi ggi n' s ver aci t y.

The t hi r d cl ust er of omi t t ed i nf or mat i on l acks any

decr et ory si gni f i cance. The modest di scr epancy bet ween Wi ggi n' s

- 12-



i nt er vi ew st atement s and hi s not es does not def eat pr obabl e cause.

The not es i ndi cat ed t hat t he appel l ant was wat chi ng "young man or

t een por nogr aphy" when Wi ggi n ar r i ved, whereas he st at ed i n t he

i nt er vi ew t hat t he subj ect s of t he vi deos r anged f r om" maybe ei ght "

t o si xteen year s of age. But Wi ggi n al so gave a physi cal

descr i pt i on of t he subj ect s, st at i ng t hat " t her e wasn' t r eal l y much

of any . . . si gns I guess, body hai r , or f aci al hai r and . . . you

can t el l when you l ook at ah, a[n] ei ght een year ol d ver sus you

know, a f our t een year ol d. " Taken t oget her , t hese st atement s

cr eat e a f ai r pr obabi l i t y that one or mor e of t he act or s was a

mi nor . No more i s exi gi bl e. See Gates, 462 U. S. at 238.

We hast en t o add t hat Wi ggi n' s r ough guess as t o t he ages

of t he mi nor s i n t he i ni t i al vi deo was not t he onl y basi s f or t he

concl usi on t hat t he appel l ant possessed chi l d por nogr aphy. Wi ggi n

r eport ed seei ng a number of other pi ct ur es and vi deos cont ai ni ng

sexual depi ct i ons of pr epubescent chi l dr en. And t he i nf er ence t hat

t he appel l ant possessed chi l d pornogr aphy was bol st er ed by

pl ausi bl e i ndi cat i ons t hat t he appel l ant har bor ed a sexual i nt er est

i n young boys. The af f i davi t r el at ed t hat Wi ggi n f i r st met t he

appel l ant when t he appel l ant ( a counsel or at a summer camp) ogl ed

Wi ggi n and ot her young camper s as t hey showered; t hat t he appel l ant

i ni t i at ed a sexual r el at i onshi p wi t h Wi ggi n when Wi ggi n was st i l l

a st udent at t he hi gh school wher e t he appel l ant wor ked; t hat t he

appel l ant became ar oused when tal ki ng about a one- t i me rendezvous

- 13-



wi t h a t een boy who had l i ed about hi s age; and that t he appel l ant

had made sexual al l usi ons t o t he ni ne- year - ol d son of Wi ggi n' s

gi r l f r i end.

We r ecogni ze t hat t he quest i on i s cl ose. But assumi ng no

dut y t o i nvest i gat e f ur t her ( an i ssue t o whi ch we shor t l y shal l

r et ur n) , we uphol d t he di st r i ct cour t ' s concl usi on t hat t he

af f i davi t , r ef or med onl y t o i ncl ude t he r eckl essl y omi t t ed f act s,

r emai ns suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause. 2 Ther e was no

error.

B. The Duty of Further Inquiry.

The appel l ant ' s second cl ai m of er r or r ai ses a quest i on

of l aw, whi ch engenders de novo r evi ew. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Gar ci a- Her nandez, 659 F. 3d 108, 111 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . Thi s cl ai mi s

pr emi sed on Nol et ' s omi ssi on of i nf or mat i on not act ual l y known t o

her at t he t i me t hat she pr epar ed t he war r ant appl i cat i on, but

pot ent i al l y avai l abl e had she i nqui r ed f ur t her . The appel l ant

argues t hat Nol et was gi ven ampl e r eason t o doubt Wi ggi n' s ver aci t y

and t hat her f ai l ur e t o under t ake a f ur t her i nqui r y evi nced a

r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he t r ut h. Had she under t aken such a

2 Our r ej ect i on of t hi s cl ai m of er r or shoul d not be

under st ood to f orecl ose a reassessment of pr obabl e cause by t hedi st r i ct cour t i f , on r emand, i t f i nds t hat Nol et was r eckl ess i nf ai l i ng t o i nqui r e f ur t her and unear t h ot her r el evant i nf or mat i on( such as Wi ggi n' s f al se r epor t convi ct i on) . The r el at i ve wei ght of t hese t hr ee cl ust er s of i nf or mat i on mi ght be al t er ed i f t het ot al i t y of t he ci r cumst ances wer e t o i ncl ude addi t i onal dat a aboutWi ggi n' s past .

- 14-



f ur t her i nqui r y, hi s argument goes, she woul d have l earned about a

cri t i cal l y i mpor t ant f act —Wi ggi n' s f al se r epor t convi ct i on —t hat

woul d have evi scer at ed t he showi ng of pr obabl e cause.

At f i r st bl ush, bl ack- l et t er l aw may seemi nhospi t abl e t o

t he appel l ant ' s ar gument . The pr evai l i ng vi ew i s t hat " [ t ] he

f ai l ur e t o i nvest i gat e a mat t er f ul l y, t o ' exhaust ever y possi bl e

l ead, i nt er vi ew al l pot ent i al wi t nesses, and accumul at e

over whel mi ng corr oborat i ve evi dence' r arel y suggest s a knowi ng or

r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he t r ut h. " Bear d v. Ci t y of Nor t hgl enn, 24

F. 3d 110, 116 ( 10t h Ci r . 1994) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Dal e, 991

F. 2d 819, 844 ( D. C. Ci r . 1993) ) . Or di nar i l y, t hi s makes good

sense: when t he af f i ant has no subst ant i al r eason t o doubt t he

ver aci t y or compl et eness of t he i nf or mat i on i ncl uded i n her

af f i davi t , a f ai l ur e ei t her t o ver i f y t he accur acy of t hat

i nf or mat i on or t o go i n sear ch of cont r ar y i nf or mat i on i s not

r eckl ess. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Sant ana, 342 F. 3d 60, 66

( 1st Ci r . 2003) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Ranney, 298 F. 3d 74, 78 ( 1st Ci r .

2002) .

But t hi s gener al r ul e —l i ke vi r t ual l y ever y gener al r ul e

—admi t s of at l east one except i on. To under st and t he oper at i on of

t hi s except i on, some backgr ound i s necessary.

The Fr anks Cour t est abl i shed t hat a def endant i s ent i t l ed

t o an evi dent i ar y hear i ng t o t est t he ver aci t y of a war r ant

af f i davi t i f he can make a subst ant i al showi ng t hat t he af f i ant ,

- 15-



wi t h r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he t r ut h, i ncl uded a mat er i al l y f al se

st atement i n t he af f i davi t . See 438 U. S. at 155- 56. We have

pr evi ousl y hel d t hat a mat er i al omi ssi on f r oma war r ant af f i davi t ,

no l ess t han t he i ncl usi on of a mat er i al l y f al se st at ement , may

f ur ni sh t he basi s f or a successf ul Franks chal l enge when t hat

omi ssi on was made wi t h si mi l ar r eckl essness. See, e. g. , Hadf i el d,

918 F. 2d at 992.

Wi t hal , " t he Supr eme Cour t i n Fr anks gave no gui dance

concer ni ng what const i t ut es a r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he t r ut h i n

f our t h amendment cases, except t o st ate t hat ' negl i gence or

i nnocent mi st ake [ i s] i nsuf f i ci ent . ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Davi s, 617

F. 2d 677, 694 ( D. C. Ci r . 1979) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng

Fr anks, 438 U. S. at 171) . We have added our own gl oss i n an

at t empt t o l end col or t o t hi s standar d. I n Uni t ed St at es v.

Ranney, we expl ai ned t hat r eckl ess di sr egard f or t he t r ut h may be

pr oven ei t her by evi dence t hat "t he af f i ant ' i n f act ent er t ai ned

ser i ous doubt s as t o t he t r ut h' of t he al l egat i ons" cont ai ned i n

t he af f i davi t , or by i nf er ence "' f r om ci r cumst ances evi nci ng

obvi ous r easons t o doubt t he ver aci t y of t he al l egat i ons. ' " 298

F. 3d at 78 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l i ams, 737 F. 2d 594, 602

( 7t h Ci r . 1984) ) .

Wi t h t hi s pr ef ace, we t ur n t o t he appel l ant ' s speci f i c

cl ai m of er r or . We st ar t wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s suppor t abl e

f i ndi ng t hat , when pr of f er i ng t he war r ant appl i cat i on, Nol et

- 16-



"under st ood f ul l wel l t hat [ Wi ggi n' s] credi bi l i t y was at i ssue,

based on hi s [ al t er ed pr escri pt i on] convi ct i on, i f not hi ng el se. " 3

Tanguay, 907 F. Supp. 2d at 182. Yet , Nol et "di d not hi ng f ur t her

t o check Wi ggi n' s backgr ound, " not even taki ng "t he seemi ngl y easy

and obvi ous st ep of aski ng Sergeant [ Br oyer ] what he meant by

' scr apes. ' " I d. I n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s vi ew, Nol et "coul d have

— and al most cer t ai nl y shoul d have — l ear ned [ about t he f al se

r epor t convi ct i on] bef or e seeki ng t he war r ant . " I d. The cour t

nonet hel ess concl uded t hat , as a mat t er of l aw, a f ai l ur e t o

i nvest i gat e f ul l y coul d not const i t ut e a r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he

t r ut h. See i d. ( ci t i ng cases) . The cour t t her ef or e hel d t hat i t

coul d not "t r eat Wi ggi n' s f al se r epor t [ ] convi ct i on, or any ot her

par t of hi s cr i mi nal hi st or y asi de f r omhi s [ al t er ed pr escr i pt i on]

convi ct i on, as a reckl ess omi ssi on f or pur poses of t he Franks

anal ysi s. " I d. at 182- 83.

We t hi nk that t he di st r i ct cour t pai nt ed wi t h t oo br oad

a br ush. I t s r ej ecti on of t he appel l ant ' s cl ai m r est ed on t he

er r oneous assumpt i on t hat a Franks vi ol at i on coul d not ar i se out of

a f ai l ur e t o i ncl ude i n a war r ant af f i davi t f acts not actual l y

known t o t he af f i ant . See i d. at 182. The r ul e i s si mpl y not so

cat egor i cal .

3 Of cour se, t hi s al t er ed pr escr i pt i on convi cti on i s di f f er entf r omt he j uveni l e f al se r epor t convi ct i on ( about whi ch Nol et had noknowl edge) .

- 17-



Here, Nol et had some r eason t o doubt t he ver aci t y of her

i nf or mant . Br oyer , a f el l ow pol i ce of f i cer , had por t r ayed Wi ggi n

as "qui r ky, " " t r oubl ed, " and possi bl y af f l i ct ed by some degr ee of

ment al i nst abi l i t y. I n addi t i on, Nol et knew t hat Wi ggi n' s hi st or y

i ncl uded t he al t er ed pr escr i pt i on convi ct i on and t hat he had

exper i enced ot her " scr apes" wi t h t he l aw. Gi ven t hat Nol et ' s case

f or pr obabl e cause depended ent i r el y on Wi ggi n' s account , we t hi nk

t hat t hi s web of ci r cumst ant i al evi dence sent up a red f l ag — and

t hat r ed f l ag may have been suf f i ci ent t o cr eat e a dut y of f ur t her

i nqui r y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Chesher , 678 F. 2d 1353, 1361- 62 ( 9t h

Ci r . 1982) .

To sum up, our hol di ng i s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed

i n r ul i ng as a mat t er of l aw t hat an af f i ant never has a dut y to

make f ur t her i nqui r y bef or e pr esent i ng a war r ant appl i cat i on t o a

magi st r at e. 4 Because t he cour t bel ow, er r oneousl y r el yi ng on i t s

cat egor i cal di savowal of any dut y of f ur t her i nqui r y, di d not pose

any of t he f ur t her quest i ons t hat had t o be asked, we must r egard

i t s order denyi ng t he appel l ant ' s mot i on t o suppr ess as wi t hout

4 The cases ci t ed by t he di st r i ct cour t f or i t s cat egor i calpr oposi t i on t hat no dut y of f ur t her i nqui r y ever exi st s, see

Tanguay, 907 F. Supp. 2d at 182, do not mandat e so r i gi d a r ul e.I n each of t hose cases, t he Franks chal l enge f ai l ed because t heaf f i ant had no r eason t o doubt t he t r ut hf ul ness of t he al l egat i onst hat undergi r ded t he showi ng of pr obabl e cause. See Ranney, 298F. 3d at 78; Cast i l l o, 287 F. 3d at 26; Uni t ed St at es v. Mi l l er , 753F. 2d 1475, 1478 ( 9t h Ci r . 1985) .

- 18-



f or ce pendi ng t he compl et i on of t he f ur t her pr oceedi ngs descr i bed

bel ow.

Thi s hol di ng i s not at odds wi t h our ear l i er hol di ng t hat

t he di st r i ct cour t suppor t abl y f ound pr obabl e cause based on t he

r ef or med af f i davi t . See supr a Par t I I ( A) . Al l t hat i s r equi r ed t o

t r i gger an of f i cer ' s dut y of f ur t her i nqui r y i s her knowl edge of an

obvi ous and unexpl or ed r eason t o doubt t he t r ut hf ul ness of t he

al l egat i ons. See Ranney, 298 F. 3d at 78. When conf r ont ed wi t h

such a r ed f l ag, t he of f i cer shoul d l ook i nt o t he mat t er even i f

she does not bel i eve t hat what she wi l l di scover i s l i kel y t o

vi t i at e pr obabl e cause. Af t er al l , t he of f i cer i s t he onl y par t y

who, i n thi s cont ext , has t he tool s t o under t ake any meani ngf ul

i nvest i gat i ve wor k.

The t r i gger f or f ur t her i nvest i gat i on may f unct i on even

when t he of f i cer ' s obvi ous r eason onl y serves t o di mi ni sh her

conf i dence t o some modest degr ee. Pi eces of evi dence shoul d not be

assessed i n i sol at i on: " t he whol e somet i mes can exceed t he sum of

t he par t s, and t he appr opr i at e t est f ocuses on t he t ot al i t y of t he

ci r cumst ances. " Mar i ko v. Hol der , 632 F. 3d 1, 6- 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) .

A di st r i ct cour t i s i n a di f f er ent posi t i on. The cour t

i s t asked wi t h maki ng a j udgment based on what appears wi t hi n t he

f our cor ner s of t he af f i davi t ( i n t hi s case, t he r ef or med

af f i davi t ) . I t i s ent i t l ed t o assume t hat t he war r ant af f i davi t i s

t he pr oduct of a good- f ai t h i nvest i gat i on and pr ovi des a r easonabl y

- 19-



compl et e pi ct ur e of t he ci r cumst ances r el evant t o pr obabl e cause.

See Franks, 438 U. S. at 171 ( r ecogni zi ng pr esumpt i on of val i di t y of

war r ant af f i davi t ) . Rel yi ng on t hi s i mpl i ci t r epr esent at i on, a

cour t may r easonabl y f i nd pr obabl e cause despi t e some l evel of

concer n about t he compl et eness of t he i nvest i gat i on. Whi l e t he

cour t bel ow pl ai nl y ent er t ai ned some doubt s based on Nol et ' s

f ai l ur e to f ol l ow i nvest i gat or y l eads, see Tanguay, 907 F. Supp. 2d

at 181- 82, t hose doubt s wer e i n t he end i nsuf f i ci ent t o er ode

pr obabl e cause.

Of cour se, expl anat i on of t hose doubt s may pai nt a

di f f er ent pi ct ur e. I f and when t he cour t i s at l i ber t y t o f act or

t he r esul t s of a f ur t her i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he mi x, i t s j udgment

may change.

The quest i ons t hat r emai n ar e f act - sensi t i ve, and t he

answer s ar e not so apparent t hat we can deci de t hem wi t hout t he

benef i t of addi t i onal f act f i ndi ng. Consequent l y, we must r et ur n

t he case t o t he di st r i ct cour t so t hat i t can make t he r equi si t e

f i ndi ngs. On r emand, t he cour t must f i r st det er mi ne whet her t he

i nf ormat i on known to Nol et gave her an obvi ous r eason to doubt

Wi ggi n' s t r ut hf ul ness and, t hus, t r i gger ed a dut y of f ur t her

i nqui r y. I f so, t he cour t t hen must ask whet her Nol et ' s doubt s

wer e of such a magni t ude t hat her f ai l ur e t o conduct an addi t i onal

i nqui r y evi nced a r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t he t r ut h as opposed t o,

say, mer e negl i gence. See Ranney, 298 F. 3d at 78. I n r espondi ng

- 20-



t o t hese t wo quest i ons, t he cour t i s not bound by an af f i ant ' s

decl ar at i on t hat she f i r ml y bel i eved i n t he credi bi l i t y of t he

i nf or mant or t he t r ut h of hi s st or y. Rat her , t he cour t may

eval uat e such a decl ar at i on i n l i ght of ci r cumst ant i al evi dence

i ndi cat i ng t hat t he af f i ant had "obvi ous r easons t o doubt t he

ver aci t y of t he i nf or mant or t he accur acy of hi s repor t s. " St .

Amant v. Thompson, 390 U. S. 727, 732 ( 1968) .

I f t he answer s t o t hese i ni t i al quest i ons ar e i n t he

af f i r mat i ve, t he cour t must ask a t hi r d quest i on: whet her Nol et ,

had she made a good- f ai t h ef f or t t o di spel t hose doubt s, woul d have

di scover ed new i nf or mat i on t hat war r ant ed i ncl usi on i n her

af f i davi t . And i f t he answer t o t hi s thi r d quest i on i s al so i n t he

af f i r mat i ve, t he cour t must consi der yet a f our t h quest i on: whet her

t he af f i davi t , expanded t o i ncl ude t hat new i nf or mat i on, woul d

cont i nue t o suppor t a f i ndi ng of pr obabl e cause. See Cast i l l o, 287

F. 3d at 26. We t ake no vi ew as t o ei t her t he answer s t o t hese

quest i ons or t he out come of t he proceedi ngs on remand.

III. CONCLUSION

We need go no f ur t her . For t he r easons el uci dat ed above,

we r emand t o t he di st r i ct cour t f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs consi st ent

wi t h t hi s opi ni on. The di st r i ct cour t shal l r eexami ne i t s Fr anks

det er mi nat i on i n l i ght of i t s f ur t her f act f i ndi ng and, i f i t now

concl udes t hat suppr essi on i s war r ant ed, i t shal l ent er an or der t o

t hat ef f ect and t r ansmi t t he or der , al ong wi t h a st at ement of i t s

- 21-



f i ndi ngs and r easons, t o t hi s cour t . I f , however , t he di st r i ct

cour t cont i nues t o uphol d t he sear ch, i t shal l ent er an or der t o

t hat ef f ect and t r ansmi t t hat or der t o us, al ong wi t h a st at ement

of i t s f i ndi ngs and r easons. Shoul d ei t her par t y desi r e appel l at e

r evi ew of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s suppl ement al or der and/ or f i ndi ngs

and r easons, he or i t may f i l e a new not i ce of appeal wi t hi n t he

cust omar y t i me paramet er s, see Fed. R. App. P. 4( b) , whi ch wi l l be

consol i dated wi t h t he pr esent appeal .

We st ay pr oceedi ngs i n t hi s cour t pendi ng our f ur t her

or der and r et ai n appel l at e j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s mat t er . The

par t i es shal l f i l e a j oi nt stat us repor t i n t hi s cour t wi t hi n 60

days f ol l owi ng t he i ssuance of t hi s opi ni on, and at 60- day

i nt er val s t her eaf t er .

So Ordered.

- 22-

Documents

United States v. Tanguay, 1st Cir. (2015)