14-2792 United States of America v. SHANNON L. GREGORY , DONALD P. CIPRA, and ERIC M. KONRADY

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
S HANNON L. GREGORY ,
DONALD P. C IPRA, and
ERIC M. K ONRADY
Defendants-Appellants.
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Western Division.
No. 11-CR-50025 — Philip G. Reinhard, Judge.
____________________
A RGUED M AY 20, 2015 — DECIDED A UGUST 4, 2015
____________________
Before BAUER , F LAUM , and HAMILTON Circuit Judges.
F LAUM , Circuit Judge. Donald Cipra, Shannon Gregory,
and Eric Konrady (collectively, the “Defendants”) ran a can-
nabis grow operation at 1025 and 1027 Paw Paw Road in Lee
County, Illinois for approximately two years. In February
2011, Shannon Gregory’s brother—Scott Gregory—contacted
the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) and provided inves-

-- 1 of 18 --

2 Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792
tigators with detailed information about Defendants’ opera-
tion. DEA Agent Chris Washburn contacted Illinois State Po-
lice Inspector Alex Chavira, who independently verified
much of Scott Gregory’s information. Inspector Chavira sub-
sequently sought search warrants in the Circuit Court of Lee
County, which the court granted upon a finding of probable
cause. Following a search of the 1025 and 1027 residences—
which revealed an extensive cannabis grow operation—
Cipra, Gregory, and Konrady were arrested and charged in
federal court with various drug and weapon offenses. De-
fendants filed motions to suppress the evidence from the
search, claiming a lack of probable cause. Additionally, in
light of assertions from Scott Gregory that investigators had
asked him to lie about the information he provided to law
enforcement, Defendants also requested a Franks hearing
and filed a motion to compel the identity of the informant.
The district court denied the motions.
Defendants pleaded guilty and were sentenced, but ap-
pealed the district court’s rulings on the Franks hearing, the
probable cause determination, and the motion to compel the
identity of the informant. We remanded the case back to the
district court to reconsider whether the identity of the in-
formant (Scott Gregory) should be disclosed. United States v.
Gregory, 545 F. App’x 508 (7th Cir. 2013). Following the re-
mand, Scott Gregory’s identity was revealed to Defendants,
and the district court held a Franks hearing. Following the
hearing, the court denied Defendants’ motion to suppress
evidence and held that the search warrants were supported
by probable cause. We affirm.

-- 2 of 18 --

Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792 3
I. Background
In February 2011, an anonymous informant contacted
DEA Agent Chris Washburn with information that an in-
door cannabis grow operation was taking place at 1025 and
1027 Paw Paw Road in Lee County, Illinois (the “1025 resi-
dence” and “1027 residence,” respectively). Agent Washburn
subsequently contacted Inspector Alex Chavira with the Illi-
nois State Police Blackhawk Area Task Force on February 16,
2011 and relayed the following information from his conver-
sation with the informant: Donald Cipra and Shannon Greg-
ory were maintaining a cannabis grow operation at the 1025
and 1027 residences. The informant had been in the base-
ment of the 1027 residence in December 2010 and took pho-
tographs of the cannabis plants; he provided Agent Wash-
burn with these photographs, and indicated that a similar
operation was in effect in the basement of the 1025 residence.
On February 28, 2011, Agent Washburn issued an adminis-
trative subpoena to Commonwealth Edison (“ComEd”) to
obtain electricity consumption information for the 1025 and
1027 residences and for nearby residences.
On March 4, 2011 the informant contacted Inspector
Chavira directly and provided him with the following in-
formation: Donald Cipra resided at the 1025 residence, and
Shannon Gregory and Eric Konrady resided at the 1027 resi-
dence. Both residences are located on the same parcel of land
and share a common driveway. Cipra and Shannon Gregory
had been growing and selling cannabis for the last seven
years, the last two of which they did so out of the 1025 and
1027 residences. The informant stated that Shannon Gregory
maintained the grow operations, and that Cipra was the
primary seller. While the 1025 residence was used to house

-- 3 of 18 --

4 Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792
plants in the vegetative and flowering stages, the 1027 resi-
dence was used primarily to house “clone” cannabis plants.
The informant told investigators that Cipra and Shannon
Gregory were maintaining a perpetual, year round harvest—
using both soil and hydroponic techniques—and that the
men were selling the cannabis for between $5,000 and $6,000
a pound. The informant reiterated that he had personally
been in the basement of the 1027 residence three months ear-
lier and had observed approximately 480 cannabis plants set
up on tables throughout the basement; he had also taken
photographs of these plants and provided them to Agent
Washburn. The informant further told Inspector Chavira
that Shannon Gregory had high electric usage, but that
Shannon paid for this usage himself rather than stealing it.
According to the informant, Cipra and Shannon Gregory
acquired firearms for protection after being robbed in the
summer of 2009. Specifically, the informant stated that Cipra
and Shannon Gregory possessed an AR-15, a 30-30, a MAC
10, a nickel plated 9MM, and possibly other firearms. The
informant also stated that he had personally observed Shan-
non Gregory and Cipra wearing holstered handguns inside
their residences. The informant said that Cipra drove a silver
or dark gray Toyota Camry (which, the informant indicated,
Cipra parked on the west side of the 1025 residence), and
that Shannon Gregory drove a red Ford Explorer. Shannon
Gregory and Cipra rarely left their residences, according to
the informant, out of a fear that they would be robbed.
Inspector Chavira was able to verify much of the infor-
mation that the informant provided. Through his investiga-
tion, Inspector Chavira learned that both Cipra and Shannon
Gregory had valid Firearms Owners Identification Cards

-- 4 of 18 --

Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792 5
and prior convictions for cannabis possession. Inspector
Chavira learned that Cipra was the owner and current resi-
dent of the 1025 residence, and that a 2008 Toyota sedan was
registered in his name; a gray vehicle was captured in a sur-
veillance photo parked on the west side of the 1025 resi-
dence, just as the informant had described. Inspector Chavi-
ra also learned that the ComEd account for the 1027 resi-
dence was registered in Shannon Gregory’s name, and that a
red Ford Explorer was photographed in front of the 1027 res-
idence. Inspector Chavira was also able to obtain the follow-
ing electricity consumption information from ComEd: (1) the
average monthly electricity consumption rate for the 1025
residence was 3011 kilowatt hours; and (2) the average
monthly electricity consumption rate for the 1027 residence
was 3938 kilowatt hours. Reviewing information from the
US Energy Information Administration, Inspector Chavira
determined that the average monthly rate of electricity con-
sumption in Illinois was 728 kilowatt hours. (We note that
when Inspector Chavira obtained this information, ComEd
still had not responded to Agent Washburn’s administrative
subpoena from February 28, 2011.)
On March 22, 2011, Inspector Chavira sought no-knock
search warrants for the 1025 and 1027 residences in the Cir-
cuit Court of Lee County, and the court issued the warrants.
In seeking the warrants, Inspector Chavira relayed the in-
formation given to him by the informant, as well as his own
corroboration of that information. However, Inspector
Chavira did not reveal the informant’s identity to the court
(because the informant was adamant that he would not pro-
vide his name, even to law enforcement), nor did the in-
formant appear in person to testify. On March 23, police exe-
cuted the search warrants and uncovered a large-scale can-

-- 5 of 18 --

6 Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792
nabis grow operation, as well as weapons, at the 1025 and
1027 residences. Cipra, Shannon Gregory, Konrady, and a
fourth co-defendant, Garcia (who is not a party to this ap-
peal), were arrested.
Konrady, Cipra, and Shannon Gregory (collectively, the
“Defendants”) were indicted in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois for various drug
and weapon offenses following their arrest; Defendants sub-
sequently moved to suppress the evidence obtained during
the March 2011 search on the theory that the search warrants
lacked probable cause. Cipra also requested a hearing pur-
suant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978),1 claiming
that Inspector Chavira intentionally omitted adverse electric-
ity consumption information disclosed by ComEd in its re-
sponse to Agent Washburn’s original subpoena. (This re-
sponse was dated April 6, 2011, which was twenty-two days
after the subpoena’s stated compliance date and fifteen days
after Inspector Chavira obtained the no-knock search war-
rants. The response showed that other residences near 1025
and 1027 had electricity consumption rates that were similar
to the rates at the 1025 and 1027 residences.)
1 Franks v. Delaware held that
where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary
showing that a false statement knowingly and intention-
ally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was includ-
ed by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the al-
legedly false statement is necessary to the finding of
probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a
hearing be held at the defendant’s request.
438 U.S. 154, 155–56 (1978).

-- 6 of 18 --

Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792 7
In January 2012, the government disclosed to Defendants
that the informant had left several voicemails for Agent
Washburn accusing him of falsifying documents to “get in-
side someone’s house.” The informant also apparently ac-
cused Agent Washburn of asking him to lie, stating, “this
isn’t what I signed up for: to lie.” The government also noti-
fied Defendants when the informant posted comments about
Agent Washburn on Craigslist which stated:
UNDERCOVER BLACKHAWK TASK
FORCE AGENT CHRIS WASHBURN (rock-
ford illinois) this lying sack of crap is a lie to
obtain warrants AND stalk people abusing his
power to screw up peoples lives. YOU CAN
CALL HIM HERE AND ASK: 1-779-537-6742.
After learning of these allegations, Cipra filed a motion to
compel disclosure of the informant’s identity (which, recall,
was still unknown to Defendants), and also renewed his re-
quest for a Franks hearing. On February 28, 2012, the district
court denied Cipra’s motions.
Following their sentencing,2 Defendants appealed the
district court’s determination that probable cause existed for
the search warrants, the court’s denial of a Franks hearing,
and the court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to compel the
identity of the informant. In an order dated October 15, 2013,
we vacated Defendants’ sentences and remanded with in-
structions to reconsider whether the identity of the inform-
ant should be disclosed. United States v. Gregory, 545 F.
App’x 508 (7th Cir. 2013). After the remand, the district court
2 Although Defendants entered pleas of guilty, they reserved the right to
challenge some of the district court’s rulings on appeal.

-- 7 of 18 --

8 Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792
ordered the disclosure of the informant’s identity; the in-
formant turned out to be Shannon Gregory’s brother, Scott
Gregory. After Defendants obtained an affidavit from Scott
Gregory, they filed a motion to suppress evidence and a re-
quest for a Franks hearing. The government agreed that a
Franks hearing was justified, and the district court held the
hearing on May 21, 2014.
Defendants raised several important issues during the
May 2014 Franks hearing. One such issue was the date on
which the photographs were taken depicting—according to
Scott Gregory—the indoor cannabis grow operation at the
1027 Paw Paw residence (the “cannabis photographs”).
Agent Washburn testified at the hearing that when he ob-
tained the cannabis photographs from Scott Gregory (which
were given to him on a USB drive), Scott Gregory told him
the photographs were taken in December 2010. Defendants
cross-examined Agent Washburn during the hearing, show-
ing him printouts of the cannabis photographs which con-
tained a directory accompanying the JPG images. The direc-
tory showed that the twelve photographs were actually tak-
en on five different dates, ranging from April 12, 2010 to
November 15, 2010. Agent Washburn testified that he never
saw the directory accompanying the photographs prior to
the hearing, and did not know that the photographs were
taken earlier than December 2010. However, Defendants ar-
gued that Agent Washburn probably did see the directory
containing the photograph dates, but ignored them in order
to artificially inflate the appearance of probable cause in
seeking the search warrants.
Defendants also argued at the Franks hearing that the en-
ergy consumption data included in Inspector Chavira’s war-

-- 8 of 18 --

Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792 9
rant applications was suspect—namely, that the data did not
include energy consumption rates of homes nearby the 1025
and 1027 residences. Such information may have un-
dermnied a probable cause finding, according to Defend-
ants, because when ComEd finally responded to Agent
Washburn’s subpoena in April 2011 (which he initially sub-
mitted in February 2011), this response showed that the 1025
and 1027 residences had electricity consumption rates which
were not atypical compared to other residences in the area.
Inspector Chavira testified at the hearing that he did not
have access to the information obtained through Agent
Washburn’s subpoena when he prepared his warrant affida-
vits in March 2011, and that his failure to seek and obtain
other, similar information was an oversight and was not de-
liberate. Conversely, Defendants contended that Inspector
Chavira omitted this information intentionally, or at least
recklessly, in order to conceal information which may have
weakened the claim that the electricity consumption at the
1025 and 1027 residences was indicative of a marijuana grow
operation.
Finally, Scott Gregory testified that investigators asked
him to lie about the date on which the cannabis photographs
were taken. However, Agent Washburn testified that during
the course of his dealings with Scott Gregory, Gregory be-
came upset with Agent Washburn over the amount of mon-
ey that he would be paid for his cooperation with the inves-
tigation. That dissatisfaction, Agent Washburn testified,
prompted Scott Gregory to send Agent Washburn text mes-
sages, leave him angry voicemails, and post derogatory mes-
sages on the internet about Agent Washburn, wherein Greg-
ory accused Agent Washburn of asking him to lie.

-- 9 of 18 --

10 Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792
Following the Franks hearing, the district court denied
Defendants’ motion to suppress evidence. The district court
determined that Agent Washburn and Inspector Chavira tes-
tified truthfully, and that Scott Gregory was not credible.
The court further determined that the investigators had not
seen the photo directory information indicating that the can-
nabis photographs were taken earlier than December 2010,
and that they did not deliberately or recklessly omit energy
consumption data from their applications for search war-
rants. The district court further held that the search warrants
were supported by probable cause, and that even if they
were not, the evidence from the search was obtained pursu-
ant to the good-faith exception as outlined in United States v.
Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984). Defendants appealed.
II. Discussion
We review the district court’s determination that the
search warrants were supported by probable cause de novo.
United States v. Roth, 201 F.3d 888, 891 (7th Cir. 2000). Addi-
tionally, because the district court denied Defendants’ mo-
tion to suppress following a Franks hearing, we review the
district court’s factual findings following the hearing—as
well as the court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to sup-
press—for clear error. United States v. Norris, 640 F.3d 295,
299–301 (7th Cir. 2011); United States v. Taylor, 471 F.3d 832,
838 (7th Cir. 2006).
A. Probable Cause
“A search warrant affidavit establishes probable cause
when it sets forth facts sufficient to induce a reasonably pru-
dent person to believe that a search thereof will uncover evi-
dence of a crime.” Roth, 201 F.3d at 892 (citation and internal

-- 10 of 18 --

Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792 11
quotation marks omitted). When an application for a search
warrant is supported by an informant’s tip, courts consider
the totality of the circumstances to determine whether that
information establishes probable cause for the search, in-
cluding: (1) the extent to which the police have corroborated
the informant’s statements; (2) the degree to which the in-
formant has acquired firsthand knowledge of the events; (3)
the amount of detail provided; (4) the amount of time be-
tween the date of the events and the application for the
search warrant; and (5) whether the informant personally
appeared before the judge issuing the warrant. United States
v. Koerth, 312 F.3d 862, 866 (7th Cir. 2002).
Here, Scott Gregory’s information was largely corrobo-
rated by Inspector Chavira, reflective of Scott Gregory’s
firsthand knowledge, and very detailed. While Scott Grego-
ry did not testify in person before the Circuit Court of Lee
County, we find that the totality of the circumstances sup-
ports a finding of probable cause. First, Inspector Chavira
corroborated that Cipra and Shannon Gregory were listed on
the electrical utility accounts for the 1025 and 1027 Paw Paw
residences, which verified the basic assertion that they lived
there. Next, investigators discovered that Cipra and Shan-
non Gregory had previous convictions for cannabis posses-
sion and that both had valid Firearms Owners Identification
Cards; this dovetailed with Scott Gregory’s information that
Cipra and Shannon Gregory grew and sold cannabis, and
that they possessed firearms for protection. Investigators
further learned that, consistent with Scott Gregory’s repre-
sentations, a 2008 Toyota sedan was registered in Cipra’s
name, and that a gray vehicle was seen parked near the 1025
residence (which Scott Gregory claimed was Cipra’s resi-
dence). Investigators also observed a red Ford Explorer

-- 11 of 18 --

12 Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792
parked in front of the 1027 residence, which Scott Gregory
claimed was Shannon Gregory’s residence; this matched
Scott Gregory’s description of Shannon Gregory’s car exact-
ly, down to the car’s make, model, and color.
To summarize, Scott Gregory provided accurate infor-
mation to law enforcement about where Cipra and Shannon
Gregory lived, what cars they drove, and that they owned
firearms. Not only does this reflect sufficient corroboration
of Scott Gregory’s information by law enforcement, it also
reflects the firsthand nature of Scott Gregory’s descriptions.
(It would be peculiar for Scott Gregory to have specific fa-
miliarity with Cipra’s and Shannon Gregory’s residences,
vehicles (down to the make, model, and color), and whether
they possessed firearms unless Scott Gregory had firsthand
knowledge of these facts.) Also reflective of the firsthand
quality of Scott Gregory’s information, he conveyed a very
detailed understanding of how Defendants’ cannabis opera-
tion worked. He indicated that Cipra and Shannon Gregory
had been running an indoor cannabis grow operation for
over seven years, and that for the last two years, they based
their operation out of the 1025 and 1027 residences. He also
specifically estimated the number of cannabis plants that he
personally observed inside the 1027 residence (480), provid-
ed photographs of those plants, and informed investigators
of how much Cipra and Shannon Gregory would sell the
cannabis for once harvested (a price that comported with in-
vestigators’ experience in the field). Although Scott Gregory
did not provide photographs from the 1025 residence, he
communicated specific knowledge of its role in the opera-
tion—i.e., that the 1025 residence housed cannabis plants in
the vegetative and flowering stages, while the 1027 residence
housed “cloned” cannabis plants.

-- 12 of 18 --

Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792 13
Scott Gregory also informed investigators of the various
methods used by Defendants to grow and harvest the plants
(soil and hydroponics), knew that Shannon Gregory used a
high amount of electricity, but understood that he paid for
this electricity himself rather than stealing it (which is com-
mon practice in the drug trade). Scott Gregory also described
the roles of Cipra and Shannon Gregory in running their op-
eration: Shannon Gregory was the primary grower, and
Cipra the seller. Finally, Scott Gregory provided detailed de-
scriptions of the firearms that he knew Cipra and Shannon
Gregory to possess, and stated that he had personally ob-
served both men wearing holstered handguns inside their
homes. The detailed and firsthand nature of Scott Gregory’s
information weighs in favor of affirming the probable cause
determination originally made by the state court and subse-
quently assessed by the district court.
Next, we consider how recent Scott Gregory’s
information was when he contacted law en-
forcement. This question implicates the dates
of the photographs that Scott Gregory provid-
ed to investigators. Scott Gregory originally in-
formed investigators that the cannabis photo-
graphs were taken at the 1027 residence in De-
cember 2010; Scott Gregory contacted Agent
Washburn for the first time in February 2011.
However, the directory accompanying the JPG
files—which was introduced as evidence dur-
ing the Franks hearing—reveals that the photo-
graphs were actually taken on dates ranging
from April 12, 2010 to November 15, 2010. De-
fendants argue that this should weigh against a
finding of probable cause. However, “[i]t is

-- 13 of 18 --

14 Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792
well established that the passage of time is less
critical when the affidavit refers to facts that
indicate ongoing continuous criminal activity.”
United States v. Mitten, 592 F. 3d 767, 775 (7th
Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). Here, Scott Gregory described
that Cipra and Shannon Gregory engaged in an
ongoing pattern of growing and selling canna-
bis for the last seven years, and that for the last
two years they operated out of the 1025 and
1027 residences. Furthermore, of the twelve
photographs that Scott Gregory turned over to
the DEA, five of them were taken on Novem-
ber 15, 2010; this is not much earlier than when
Scott Gregory originally told investigators the
photographs were taken (sometime in Decem-
ber 2010). Thus, we are not convinced that the
dates on the cannabis photographs cut against
a finding of probable cause. And while it is
true that Scott Gregory did not appear in per-
son to testify when the Circuit Court of Lee
County made its probable cause determination,
that fact alone does not counteract the strength
of the firsthand information that he provided
to law enforcement. Thus, we conclude that
probable cause existed for the search warrants
issued by the Circuit Court of Lee County.
Finally, the district court concluded that even if the
search warrants were not supported by probable cause, that
the good-faith exception under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S.
897 (1984) applied. We agree. Leon makes clear that “[i]n the
ordinary case, an officer cannot be expected to question the

-- 14 of 18 --

Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792 15
magistrate’s probable-cause determination or his judgment
that the form of the warrant is technically sufficient … . Pe-
nalizing the officer for the magistrate’s error, rather than his
own, cannot logically contribute to the deterrence of Fourth
Amendment violations.” Id. at 921. As Leon permits, Agent
Washburn and Inspector Chavira placed “objectively rea-
sonable reliance” on the state court judge’s determination
that probable cause existed for the search warrants, and thus
regardless of whether probable cause actually existed, the
district court was correct to conclude that evidence suppres-
sion was not the appropriate remedy here. Id. at 922.
B. Conclusions Following the Franks Hearing
Under the standard of Franks v. Delaware, evidence re-
covered from a search must be suppressed if a defendant
proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the affi-
davit contained material false statements or omissions; (2)
these false statements or omissions were made with deliber-
ate or reckless disregard for the truth; and (3) these false
statements or omissions were necessary to a finding of prob-
able cause. 438 U.S. at 155–56; see also United States v. Wil-
liams, 718 F.3d 644, 647–48 (7th Cir. 2013). Defendants raised
two arguments during the Franks hearing—and do so again
on appeal—regarding allegedly false information used to
obtain the search warrants. First, Defendants claim that the
affidavits included false information about when the canna-
bis photographs were taken. Second, Defendants claim that
Inspector Chavira either deliberately or recklessly included
misleading electricity consumption information in his affi-
davits in support of the search warrants.
On the issue of the cannabis photographs, Defendants
provide no evidence to support their blanket assertions that

-- 15 of 18 --

16 Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792
either Inspector Chavira or Agent Washburn knew that Scott
Gregory’s photographs were taken between April and No-
vember 2010, rather than in December 2010. During the
Franks hearing, Scott Gregory testified that Agent Washburn
asked him to lie about the dates of the photographs. In con-
trast, Agent Washburn testified that he never asked Scott
Gregory to lie about the photograph dates. Agent Washburn
and Inspector Chavira also testified that they never saw a
directory of the photographs showing that they were taken
earlier than December 2010. After hearing the testimony of
Scott Gregory, Agent Washburn, and Inspector Chavira, the
district court concluded that Scott Gregory’s claim was not
credible, and that the investigators testified truthfully in
claiming that they never saw a dated photograph directory.
Notably, the district court mentioned in reaching its decision
that Defendants presented no evidence about whether a
photograph directory would have appeared alongside the
photographs when they were opened from the USB drive
that Scott Gregory provided to Agent Washburn. In light of
this missing evidentiary link, we see no reason to question
the district court’s determination that Agent Washburn and
Inspector Chavira were testifying truthfully about having
never seen a dated photograph directory accompanying
Scott Gregory’s photographs.
Additionally, the district court made this credibility de-
termination partially in light of Scott Gregory’s potential in-
centives to lie. Specifically, the court noted that Scott Grego-
ry—because he is Shannon Gregory’s brother—could be feel-
ing some amount of remorse for orchestrating his brother’s
arrest and conviction. Additionally, the court highlighted
Agent Washburn’s testimony that Scott Gregory was un-
happy about the $1500 he was ultimately paid for his coop-

-- 16 of 18 --

Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792 17
eration with law enforcement, and that he threatened to
falsely accuse the investigators of lying if he did not receive
more money. Especially in light of these incentives, we see
no reason to disturb the district court’s credibility determi-
nation here. See United States v. Gonzalez, 765 F.3d 732, 738
(7th Cir. 2014) (noting that “a district court’s determination
of witness credibility ... can virtually never be clear error”).
Thus, even though the search warrant affidavits in this case
included false information about when the cannabis photo-
graphs were taken, we agree with the district court that there
is no evidence that investigators included this information
recklessly or deliberately.
Additionally, the district court was reasonable to con-
clude that Inspector Chavira did not deliberately or reckless-
ly exclude any of the adverse electricity consumption evi-
dence from his affidavits in support of the search warrants.
The evidence to which Defendants refer—which shows that
other residences near the 1025 and 1027 residences had simi-
lar rates of monthly electricity consumption—was not avail-
able to Inspector Chavira when he prepared the affidavits, as
ComEd was late in responding to Agent Washburn’s origi-
nal administrative subpoena. Thus, there is no viable argu-
ment that Inspector Chavira had access to this information at
the time that he prepared his affidavits but simply chose not
to include it. Nonetheless, Defendants argue that it was reck-
less for Inspector Chavira not to include comparable rates of
electricity consumption for nearby residences in his search
warrant affidavits. Conversely, Inspector Chavira testified
that his failure to include comparable rates was merely an
oversight, and that he proceeded to prepare the affidavits
without this evidence because he did not believe it to be cru-
cial to a finding of probable cause. The district court found

-- 17 of 18 --

18 Nos. 14-2747, 14-2759 & 14-2792
this claim to be credible, and once again, we see no reason to
disagree. Additionally, the district court concluded that even
if the electricity consumption evidence had been stricken
from the affidavit, other evidence provided by Scott Gregory
was sufficient to establish probable cause. Given the exten-
sive and detailed nature of the information Scott Gregory
provided to law enforcement (as we explained above in ana-
lyzing the existence of probable cause), we agree.
Thus, we affirm the conclusions reached by the district
court following the Franks hearing in this case. We agree that
Defendants failed to show that investigators deliberately or
recklessly included false information—or omitted material
information—that was necessary to a finding of probable
cause. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155–56.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, the district court did not err in denying
Defendants’ motion to suppress the evidence recovered in
the search of the 1025 and 1027 residences. Accordingly, we
A FFIRM .

-- 18 of 18 --