Background
Police investigated the shooting death of Blake Story and obtained a warrant to search Qeyeon Tolbert’s apartment. The affidavit described video showing a man shoot Story near 403 E. 152nd Street, then stated that the same suspect was later seen exiting and reentering the building’s front entrance, which detectives determined provided direct access to Apartment #1.
Tolbert moved to suppress the evidence recovered in the search, including a firearm, clothing, shoes, and cell phones. His challenge principally concerned the investigation’s use of the Fusion Center and Clearview AI facial-recognition results to identify him. After an earlier remand for findings, the trial court found deliberate or reckless falsehoods, struck paragraphs 14 through 22 of the affidavit, and suppressed the evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District reversed. It held that the trial court erred in striking paragraph 21, which said the same male suspect was observed exiting and reentering 403 E. 152nd Street on February 20. Tolbert had not specifically challenged that paragraph under Franks v. Delaware, and the record did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it was intentionally or recklessly false.
Reinstating paragraph 21, the court held that the remaining affidavit established probable cause even if the other paragraphs the trial court struck remained excluded. The video observations linked the shooter to the area of the homicide and, days later, to the entrance leading directly into the apartment, creating a fair probability that evidence of Story’s murder would be found there. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A Franks challenge must specifically identify the affidavit statements alleged to be deliberately or recklessly false.
- An investigative lead involving facial-recognition technology did not invalidate independently supported observations in the warrant affidavit.
- Probable cause to search may rest on a nexus between the crime, the suspect’s observed conduct, and the particular premises.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes that suppression under Franks requires proof of an intentional or reckless false statement, not merely concern over other aspects of an investigation. It also distinguishes between the use of a technology-assisted lead to name a suspect and traditional evidence supporting a search of a particular property.