UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOEANN WHARTON
US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Motz, Oct. 21, 2016,
SSW Affidavit – Omitted Facts – Where relevant facts were omitted from a search warrant affidavit, the warrant was still valid where including those facts still resulted in a finding of probable cause to search the location.

Facts: Joeann Wharton was being investigated for government-benefit fraud/theft. Her husband, John Wharton, came under investigation as well. A federal agent applied for and received a search warrant for their residence on Utrechet Road in NE Baltimore. The warrant targeted John Wharton and included supporting information from his investigation such as bills in John and Joeann’s name and John’s admission that he lived at the residence with Joeann. The warrant did not include information received showing that John lived in the basement separate from the rest of the house.
At trial – Because of the affiant’s omission, the trial court suppressed evidence found in Joeanne’s room but admitted evidence found in John’s room and the common areas. Evidence found in common areas was admitted against Joeanne, who appealed to exclude all evidence recovered by the warrant.
Holding- If an affiant intentionally/recklessly omitted relevant information, but the rest of the affidavit still appears valid, the court includes the omitted information and determines whether probable cause still exists. Because John had physical access to the common areas of the house, admitted to living there with Joeann, and his name appeared with Joeanne’s on bills, there was probable cause to believe that evidence of crimes he was involved in would be found in the common areas of the house.
Search Warrants – A defendant has two primary ways to attack a search warrant:
• show that the warrant was in some way defective (The “Four-Corners” Test)
• OR show that the affiant misrepresented the facts (The “Franks” Test).
Search Warrants- A Franks Hearing is generally held when a defendant challenges the truth of the affidavit. To succeed In this hearing, the defendant must prove that the affiant:
• Intentionally OR recklessly either:
o Included a false statement
o OR omitted (didn’t include) facts
• AND the false/omitted facts were “material.” Facts are material if their truthful inclusion would have undermined a finding of probable cause.
Search Warrant – The standard for a search warrant is “probable cause.” Where applied to a shared residence, this has been defined as a “fair probability” that a search of the common areas of the house would reveal evidence of the crime