USA v. BANKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:24-cr-00068-LEW
)
WILLIE BANKS, 	)
)
Defendant 	)
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR FRANKS HEARING
On March 13, 2024, Westbook Police executed a search warrant at 290 Cumberland
Street, Apartment 1. 	As a result of the search, Defendant Willie Banks was indicted on
one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Before the Court is Mr. Banks’s Motion to Suppress and for a Franks Hearing (ECF No.
21). Chiefly, Mr. Banks argues that the affidavit in support of the search warrant contained
material misrepresentations and omissions and, on that basis, he moves for an evidentiary
hearing to examine the truthfulness of the affidavit. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154,
156 (1978). For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing is denied.
A ruling on the Motion to Suppress is reserved pending a suppression hearing.
Case 2:24-cr-00068-LEW Document 28 Filed 12/04/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
BACKGROUND1
On March 13, 2024, Westbrook Police responded to a report of gunfire at an
apartment complex. 	While there, they spoke with Mr. Banks, who took them into the
apartment where they met Mackenzie Ross and Melissa Staples. 	All three adults have a
similar build. Mr. Banks was wearing a black shirt and dark, patched pants, Ms. Ross had
on a light top and dark bottoms, and Ms. Staples had on a black hoodie and dark pants.
Ms. Ross told the police that another woman, Nadira Thomas,2 came into the apartment
and threatened to kill her at gunpoint. Mr. Banks told the police officers that he had seen
a woman fire a gun multiple times from the driveway.
A neighbor, who had a security camera outside his home, provided footage of the
altercation to police at the scene. 	The video shows a person, presumably Ms. Thomas,
walk over the driveway, up the stairs, and into the apartment. 	A few moments later,
Thomas left the apartment and was followed by another person. The two seemingly talked
for a short time. Thomas then walked down the stairs, and the other person returned to the
apartment. As she walked down the driveway, Thomas pointed a gun in the air and fired
it. Immediately after, a person from the apartment ran outside and fired six times at Thomas
before returning inside. Following the gunfire, a person left the apartment and knocked on
a neighbor’s door. They were briefly joined by a second person from the apartment before
1 The background statement is drawn from Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 21) and the
Government’s Response (ECF No. 24).
2 Occasionally referred to as Ms. Thompson in filings, I adopt the more frequently used Ms. Thomas.
Case 2:24-cr-00068-LEW Document 28 Filed 12/04/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
both returned to the apartment. 	When police arrived, Mr. Banks exited the apartment to
signal to them.
Reviewing 	the 	footage, 	Special 	Agent 	Robinson 	stated 	he 	“immediately
recognized” Mr. Banks as the person who exited the apartment firing a gun. Special Agent
Robinson knew Mr. Banks from previous police work. 	Detective Jeffrey Stackpole then
detained Mr. Banks and gave him his Miranda rights before questioning him again about
the shootings. Mr. Banks told the police that two women had come to the apartment and
were involved in the shooting and that there were no firearms in the apartment. 	Around
the same time, Special Agent Robinson interviewed Ms. Ross, who stated Ms. Thomas
held her at gunpoint before Mr. Banks and Ms. Staples asked Ms. Thomas to leave. Ms.
Ross stated that she, Ms. Staples, and Mr. Banks were all in the kitchen when the shooting
started outside the apartment. 	When Special Agent Robinson told Ms. Ross he knew it
was Mr. Banks who had fired at Ms. Thomas, she stated she did not know anything about
that.
The police officers allowed Ms. Staples to leave after they confirmed she did not
have a gun on her. Detective Stackpole left to request a search warrant for the apartment.
In Stackpole’s affidavit in support of the search warrant he describes the video footage
provided by the neighbor. 	It is this description in the affidavit that forms the basis of
Defendant’s arguments.
DISCUSSION
Affidavits in support of search warrants are presumptively valid. 	Franks v.
Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978). However, a defendant may seek a Franks hearing to
Case 2:24-cr-00068-LEW Document 28 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
attack the veracity of a supporting affidavit. 	Id. at 156. 	The bar to mandating a Franks
hearing is intentionally high. A defendant is only entitled to a Franks hearing “if he can
make a substantial showing that (1) the affiant intentionally or with reckless disregard for
the truth included a false statement in the affidavit, or omitted information from the
affidavit; and (2) such false statement or omitted information was material to the probable
cause inquiry.” United States v. Austin, 991 F.3d 51, 57 (1st Cir. 2021). Reckless disregard
for the truth entails a showing that the affiant “‘entertained serious doubts as to the truth’
of the allegations.” 	United States v. Ranney, 298 F.3d 74, 78 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting
United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 602 (7th Cir. 1984)). 	“Recklessness may be
inferred ‘from circumstances evincing obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the
allegations.’” 	Id. (quoting Williams, 737 F.2d at 602)).
Defendant alleges ten deficiencies in Detective Stackpole’s affidavit.3 	In short,
Defendant argues that Detective Stackpole’s affidavit contained several misrepresentations
and omissions, most of which revolve around the identification of Mr. Banks as the person
3 Defendant’s Motion to Suppress states that Detective Stackpole’s affidavit: (1) “omitted any physical
description of Ms. Ross, Mr. Banks and Ms. Staples” and “omitted that Ms. Staples was not a prohibited
possessor,” Def.’s Mot. at 2; (2) “made no mention of the circumstances that led up to the discharge of the
firearms [and] did not include any mention of Ms. Thompson’s documented threats to kill Ms. Ross nor of
Ms. Thompson holding Ms. Ross at gunpoint,” id.; (3) stated Detective Stackpole “viewed the video and
concluded [it depicted] an argument between Ms. Thomas” and the Defendant, id. at 3; (4) “omitted that
the person who interacted with Ms. Thomas outside returned inside,” id.; (5) misrepresented that the
exchange of gunfire seen on the video was between the Defendant and Thomas, id. at 4; (6) misrepresented
that the “video clearly shows a male exit apartment 1 and fire six rounds” and improperly relies on
Robinson’s statement that he “immediately recognized the male in the video” as the Defendant, id.; (7)
misrepresented that the Defendant ran back into the apartment following the gunfire to call 911, id. at 5;
(8) misrepresents that the Defendant was seen on the video exiting the apartment to knock on a neighbor’s
door following the gunfire, id.; (9) omitted that a second person exited the apartment and misrepresented
that “no one else exits or enters the apartment after the shooting,” id.; and (10) omitted Ms. Ross’s
exculpatory statement that the Defendant was in the kitchen when the shots were fired, id. at 6.
Case 2:24-cr-00068-LEW Document 28 Filed 12/04/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
who fired upon Ms. Thomas. 	Defendant argues that the poor quality of the video
undermines the ability to identify who the figure is and that Detective Stackpole’s repeated
identifications of Mr. Banks as the figure was an assertion made with reckless disregard
for the truth. Defendant contends that were the affidavit to identify instead only a “person
in dark clothing” probable cause to search the apartment would not have existed. 	Def.’s
Mot. at 10. 	The Government counters that the Defendant was identifiable on the video
because he had short hair compared to Ms. Ross and Ms. Staples. Further, the Government
notes Mr. Banks told them he knocked on his neighbor’s door following the shooting, so
police could reference him as the figure in the video.
A. 	R ECKLESS D ISREGARD FOR THE TRUTH
Regarding the first prong of Franks, the inquiry is whether the circumstances give
“obvious reasons” to doubt that the figure in the video was Mr. Banks. Ranney, 298 F.3d
at 78. 	The video quality is of sufficiently low resolution for me to conclude that the
Government’s argument that Mr. Banks was identifiable by his comparatively short hair,
lacks luster. 	As the Defendant points out, Ms. Staples’ dark hair and hoodie make it
plausible she could have been the individual who exited the apartment to fire the gun. On
the other hand, Robinson had the benefit of both past familiarity with Banks and his
observation of the occupants of the apartment in person before seeing the video,
circumstances that may have informed his conclusion. 	In any case, given the paucity of
helpful pixels, I decline to deconstruct the video frame by Zapruder frame, most notably
because Defendant’s motion so readily fails on the question of probable cause.
Case 2:24-cr-00068-LEW Document 28 Filed 12/04/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
B. 	PROBABLE CAUSE
In analyzing a request for a Franks hearing in which the Defendant alleges the
search warrant affidavit omitted material facts, the inquiry is whether the inclusion of the
omitted information would have led to a magistrate judge finding that the search warrant
application was not supported by probable cause. United States v. Rigaud, 684 F.3d 169,
173 n.5 (1st Cir. 2012). Where the defendant instead alleges that the affidavit contained
material 	misrepresentations, 	the 	inquiry 	is 	whether 	inclusion 	of 	one 	or 	more
misrepresentations was necessary for probable cause to exist. Id. Here, Defendant alleges
both misrepresentations and omissions, but all his contentions center around Detective
Stackpole’s identification of Mr. Banks as the individual who shot at Ms. Thomas. 	The
question is then whether a “reformed” affidavit that includes alleged omissions and
excludes alleged falsities would still support a finding of probable cause.
Search warrants are governed by the Fourth Amendment, which provides that “no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation.” 	U.S.
Const. amend. IV. For search warrants, the probable cause requirement is twofold: there
must be probable cause to believe a crime has been committed (the “commission element”)
and that enumerated evidence of the crime will be found at the place searched (the “nexus
element”). 	United States v. Dixon, 787 F.3d 55, 59 (1st Cir. 2015) (internal quotations
omitted). Probable cause exists where “given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit
. . . there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983). The fair probability standard
“is less than a more-likely-than not standard.” United States v. Gonzales, 113 F.4th 140,
Case 2:24-cr-00068-LEW Document 28 Filed 12/04/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
148 (1st Cir. 2024) (citing United States v. Feliz, 182 F.3d 82, 88 (1st Cir. 1999)). In short,
the probable cause standard is not a difficult one, it “demands only the kind of fair
probability on which reasonable and prudent people, not legal technicians, act.” 	United
States v. Adams, 971 F.3d 22, 32 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237,
244 (2013)) (cleaned up).
An 	affidavit 	revised 	to 	correct 	Defendant’s 	alleged 	misrepresentations 	and
omissions would, rather than identify Mr. Banks as one of the individuals depicted in the
video, instead simply include a more benign description of an “individual in dark clothing”
firing a gun at Ms. Thomas. Additionally, it would include Ms. Thomas’s actions prior to
the shooting, the fact that Ms. Staples was not prohibited from possessing firearms, the
events leading to the gunfire, and Ms. Ross’s exculpatory statements. This revised affidavit
might reduce below the level of metaphysical certainty that Mr. Banks is culpable for a
crime, but it does not reduce below the probable cause threshold the inference that a crime
occurred or that evidence of the crime would be found in the apartment in question to
support the warrant.
The revised affidavit would provide that someone left the apartment with a gun and
fired it six times before returning to the same apartment. 	Ms. Ross’s exculpatory
statements, if included, would place both Mr. Banks and Ms. Staples inside during the
shooting.4 	The revised affidavit thus gives equal odds that Mr. Banks or Ms. Staples, a
4 The Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 24) states there was also a “young
juvenile male” inside the apartment. ECF No. 24 at 2. Neither party discusses his involvement in the altercation.
Presumably, he is also not the figure wielding a firearm on the video as he would not have a similar build to the three
adults.
Case 2:24-cr-00068-LEW Document 28 Filed 12/04/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
potentially lawful possessor, was the individual who fired the gun. In either instance the
affidavit likely allows a reasonable inference of a fair probability that a crime occurred, be
it that Mr. Banks unlawfully possessed a firearm or that some person committed an assault,
and that the gun, last seen in possession of a person entering the apartment, would be found
there. Statements about the altercation prior to the shooting, as is true of the other as yet
undeveloped plot twists, may provide grist for the trial mill and allow Defendant to thwart
the Government’s attempt to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime
charged. 	However, they neither eliminate nor reduce the “fair probability” of either the
commission or the nexus element of the probable cause inquiry. Thus, Defendant has failed
to make out a substantial showing that the alleged deficiencies in Detective Stackpole’s
affidavit were material to a finding of probable cause.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and for a Franks Hearing
is RESERVED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion to Suppress is RESERVED
pending a hearing. The request for a Franks hearing is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this fourth day of December, 2024.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 2:24-cr-00068-LEW Document 28 Filed 12/04/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>