United States v. Michael Clark

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · April 9, 2025 · No. 24-1403

Summary

This Seventh Circuit opinion affirms the district court’s denial of defendant Michael Clark’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a hotel room search. The court applied the clear error standard to uphold the magistrate judge’s credibility findings after a Franks hearing, concluding the investigating officer did not recklessly omit information about a confidential informant. Additionally, the panel issues a judicial note criticizing the increasing frequency of appellants failing to file reply briefs and underscoring their strategic value.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Scudder; Hamilton; Brennan
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decision date
April 9, 2025
Docket number
24-1403
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, No. 3:17-cr-00053-jdp-1
Standard of review
clear error
Precedential value
published
Parties
Michael Clark v. United States
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

search and seizureexclusionary ruleappellate jurisdictionstandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in finding that the investigating officer did not act with deliberate or reckless disregard for the truth in omitting adverse informant credibility information
  2. Whether the district court's factual findings are subject to clear error review

Holdings

  1. The district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous; therefore the denial of the motion to suppress is affirmed.

Key quotations

All too often a party files a notice of appeal, pays the filing fee, and submits an opening brief, only to go radio silent when the reply brief comes due. To be sure, reply briefs—unlike opening and response briefs—are not required and there may be instances where they prove unnecessary, say, for example, when an opening brief anticipates and addresses all points later made in an opposition brief or perhaps where an opposition brief concedes error. (at 5)

Factual background

A federal jury convicted Michael Clark of possession of a controlled substance after police searched his hotel room based on a warrant. The warrant affidavit omitted adverse credibility information about a confidential informant. The magistrate judge found no reckless omission, and the district court denied the motion to suppress.

Procedural history

The district court denied Clark's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a hotel-room search after a Franks hearing found the investigating officer's affidavit omission was not reckless. The conviction was reinstated. Clark appealed the denial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…