The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently examined United States v. Felton, 159 F.4th 1128 (7th Cir. 2025), addressing whether an affidavit established probable cause for a GPS tracking warrant when the affidavit relied heavily on a confidential informant’s tip and omitted key information about the informant’s credibility.
Summary of the Facts
In May 2019, a confidential informant informed law enforcement officers that Donald Felton regularly traveled from St. Louis, Missouri, to purchase two to three ounces of meth and would then resell the drugs in Taylorville, Illinois. The informant told the officers that Felton would be making another trip soon while driving a white Mazda SUV belonging to his girlfriend, Kourtneigh Oats. The informant also stated that about two weeks earlier, law enforcement stopped Felton on his way to St. Louis, that he possessed a “starter pistol,” and that he ultimately stopped his trip to St. Louis after the traffic stop.
Inspector Sheriff Jeffrey Brown corroborated the CI’s information in multiple ways. He had previously arrested Felton in April 2017 for possession of meth and drug paraphernalia. Further, he had spotted Oats’s vehicle two days before meeting with the CI at the house she shared with Felton. Moreover, Inspector Brown reviewed the April 2019 traffic report from when Felton was stopped on the way to St. Louis. Lastly, he talked with Deputy Goebel, who conducted the stop and informed him that he observed approximately $2,000 in cash and a “handgun that only shot blanks” in Oats’s vehicle.
Inspector Brown prepared an affidavit seeking a warrant to install a tracking device on the SUV. The affidavit relied on the CI’s statements, his corroboration, and Felton’s criminal history. However, the affidavit omitted substantial information about the confidential source’s credibility, such as payments to the source, the source’s cooperation in exchange for consideration in legal matters, and the source’s own criminal history and pending charges.
Based on the warrant, the GPS tracking device was installed on the white Mazda SUV. Three days later, Inspector Brown received an alert that the Mazda had left Taylorville and was heading toward St. Louis. When the Mazda returned to Christian County, Inspector Brown arranged for a traffic stop with K9 assistance based on a missing front license plate. At the time of the stop, Felton was driving the vehicle. The K9 unit alerted to the presence of drugs in the Mazda, and while searching the vehicle, officers recovered a plastic bag filled with a substance that eventually tested positive for methamphetamine.
In the aftermath, Felton was charged with possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine. Felton moved to suppress the evidence recovered from the Mazda, arguing that the search warrant was insufficient to support probable cause because it failed to disclose information about the confidential source’s credibility. He also maintained that the good faith exception under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), did not apply. Felton requested a Franks hearing to determine whether Inspector Brown intentionally or recklessly omitted material information from the affidavit. The district court denied the motion to suppress and denied the Franks hearing, finding that the warrant was supported by probable cause and that any omissions were not material. Felton appealed, seeking review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
When the case reached the Seventh Circuit, the court reversed the denial of Felton’s suppression motion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The Seventh Circuit held that the search warrant affidavit was insufficient to support probable cause because it relied almost exclusively on the confidential source and omitted material information regarding the source’s credibility. The court further concluded that Felton made a substantial preliminary showing warranting a Franks hearing.
Probable Cause for the Search Warrant
On appeal, Felton challenged the validity of the search warrant based on his contention that the supporting affidavit was inadequate. Specifically, he claimed it relied heavily on information from a confidential source without explaining the nature of that source’s relationship with him or how the source obtained knowledge of the alleged drug activity. He also highlighted that the source did not testify before the issuing judge. Additionally, Felton argued that the investigator’s attempts to corroborate the information were insufficient, as they did not clearly connect him to ongoing drug-related criminal activity.
The court emphasized that probable cause exists when there are enough facts to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a certain place. The court cited the seminal Supreme Court decision in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983), which held that the existence of probable cause is based on the totality of the circumstances when a warrant affidavit relies primarily on a confidential source’s reports. Based on Seventh Circuit jurisprudence, the Circuit applies a five-factor test to guide this inquiry: (1) the level of detail the informant provided; (2) the extent of the informant’s firsthand knowledge; (3) the degree to which the information has been corroborated; (4) the time between the events reported and the warrant application; and (5) whether the informant appeared before the judge.
However, the Seventh Circuit emphasized that no single factor automatically determines whether probable cause exists. Under Gates, the judge must look at the totality of the circumstances and make a practical, common-sense decision. This includes evaluating how reliable the information is and how the source obtained it, especially when it comes from hearsay.
Applying these principles to this case, the court emphasized that the only link between Felton and the alleged drug activity was an uncorroborated tip from a confidential source. While the source accurately described the April 2019 police encounter involving Felton, that alone did not indicate drug activity since Deputy Goebel did not locate drugs or observe a controlled buy during that interaction. At that time, the Deputy only observed a stack of cash, a lookalike firearm, and Felton’s stated travel plans. Thus, these facts could not confirm the source’s claim that Felton was traveling to obtain methamphetamine.
The affidavit also failed to explain how the confidential source obtained their information. There was no indication of firsthand knowledge, such as direct observation of drugs or involvement in transactions. Without that information, the court found the source’s claims had significantly less weight. Additionally, the court cited Seventh Circuit precedent established in United States v. Glover, 755 F.3d 811, 815 (7th Cir. 2014), which concluded that a defendant’s status as a convicted felon by itself is not evidence of ongoing wrongdoing. Therefore, Inspector Brown’s knowledge that Felton had a prior criminal history did not establish current criminal activity.
Overall, the affidavit relied almost entirely on the source’s statements but did not provide meaningful information about the source’s credibility. It did not describe the source’s relationship with Felton, any potential bias, criminal history, or whether the source received compensation or benefits. The source also did not testify before the judge. Without this information, the court concluded that the issuing judge lacked a sufficient basis to evaluate the reliability of the source. Without any corroboration of the criminal activity at issue, Brown’s probable cause affidavit supporting the search warrant for the tracker was insufficient to support a finding of probable cause.
Good Faith Exception
The court then turned to Felton’s argument that the good faith exception should not apply since Inspector Brown omitted material information about the CI, which supported a reckless disregard for the truth and entitled him to a Franks hearing. The court emphasized the Franks hearing standard and explained that a defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing that (1) the warrant affidavit contained material falsehoods or omissions that would alter the probable cause determination, and (2) the affiant omitted the information intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth.
In this case, much of the affidavit was supported by information from the confidential source. However, Inspector Brown omitted material credibility information regarding the confidential source. Because the affidavit relied heavily on the confidential source’s tip while omitting key information about the source’s credibility, the court concluded that Felton had made the substantial preliminary showing required for an evidentiary hearing on his Franks challenge. Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit reversed the denial of the suppression motion and remanded the case back to the district court for a Franks hearing.
Key Takeaways
Felton emphasizes that officers must gather specific details and corroborate such information when relying on information provided by confidential informants. As illustrated in this case, warrant affidavits must clearly articulate how the information was verified. Moreover, this case reminds officers to disclose potential issues affecting an informant’s credibility.
United States v. Felton, 159 F.4th 1128 (7th Cir. 2025)