Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Detectives investigating a Marion man suspecting of dealing drugs did not deliberately make misleading omissions to obtain a search warrant of the man’s apartment, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday in affirming the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence.
According to court records, in 2021, a tipster reported to a Grant County Sheriff’s Deputy that David Hueston was dealing drugs.
The deputy passed the information on to the Joint Effort Against Narcotics Team Drug Task Force.
A few days later the team met with the tipster for a partially recorded conversation, in which the tipster explained he wanted to break his methamphetamine addiction by turning in his dealer.
He told the police that he had been at Hueston’s apartment recently and saw a bag of heroin, methamphetamine and guns laying around.
After showing the detectives Hueston’s photo, he rode with them to the location where he claimed Hueston lived. After meeting with the tipster, the detectives began electronic and in-person surveillance of Hueston’s apartment.
The detectives ran the plate of the Mini Cooper that allegedly was Hueston’s. A woman was driving the car when the plates were ran and the detectives discovered they belonged on a 2013 Hyundai owned by the woman.
Later on, detectives observed a man appearing to enter Hueston’s apartment.
When the man drove away, a Grant County Sheriff’s deputy pulled him over for a traffic violation and found methamphetamine, other drugs and a scale.
The detectives continued surveillance on Hueston’s apartment, while they wrote an affidavit in support of a search warrant. The affidavit didn’t include information about the tipster other than his initial tip, and it was approved by the local prosecutor before being submitted to the issuing judge.
A judge issued a search warrant for Hueston’s apartment, which detectives executed later that night.
They found thousands of dollars in cash, methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl and a handgun and ammunition in the apartment.
In April 2021, Hueston was indicted in the Northern District Court of Indiana for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and 100 grams or more of heroin, possession of a firearm in furtherance of those drug trafficking crimes and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Hueston moved to suppress evidence seized from his apartment because he argued the supporting affidavit did not establish probable cause.
He also filed a motion for a Franks hearing. The district court granted his request for a hearing after concluding the affidavit and its alleged omissions were “troubling.”
Two detectives testified and explained their investigation of Hueston, interactions with the tipster and information contained in and excluded from the affidavit.
The district court found the detectives testimony was credible and that there was no reckless or deliberate disregard for the truth, despite identifying multiple omissions and one misstatement in the affidavit.
The district court denied Hueston’s motion to suppress.
He then pleaded guilty and expressly reserved his right to appeal the court’s suppression order.
On appeal, Hueston argued that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
First, the court addressed whether Hueston’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. It agreed with the district court that the affidavit was lacking certain details that should have been included.
“The district court did not, however, clearly err by crediting the detectives’ explanations and finding that they did not act with recklessness or a deliberate intent to mislead the issuing judge,” Judge Amy St. Eve wrote.
The court also affirmed the district court’s finding that no Franks violation occurred, with St. Eve writing that it was not convincing that the district court committed error.
Secondly, the court looked at Hueston’s other challenge against the good-faith exception.
“Hueston has failed to present evidence that the issuing judge was not acting in a neutral and detached way. Nor can Hueston overcome the presumption of good faith by showing dishonesty or recklessness since we have already concluded that Detective (Michael) Ross did not commit a Franks violation,” St. Eve wrote.
The court also affirmed the district court’s finding of good faith and that the issuing judge was acting in a neutral and detached manner.
The case is United States of America v. David Hueston, 23-1057.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.