Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Haakenstad v. Symdon

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

December 29, 2017

CHRISTOPHER WAYNE HAAKENSTAD, Petitioner,
v.
DENISE SYMDON, Respondent.

          OPINION & ORDER

          JAMES D. PETERSON District Judge.

         Pro se petitioner Christopher Wayne Haakenstad, who is on extended supervision, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Haakenstad contends that the Circuit Court for St. Croix County erred by holding a procedurally defective hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), when he moved to suppress evidence challenging a warrant affidavit that led to a search of his apartment. He argues that the circuit court erred by denying him an opportunity to examine the affiant and by characterizing the hearing as a pre-Franks hearing when in fact it was a full Franks hearing. I allowed him to proceed beyond preliminary review, and the petition is now fully briefed.

         I will deny Haakenstad's petition. Haakenstad's claim is barred under Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). And even if the circuit court held a procedurally defective hearing, the error was harmless because after excising the challenged portion of the affidavit, the remaining portions of the affidavit still showed probable cause.

         BACKGROUND

         I draw the following facts from Haakenstad's petition, his state court proceedings, and the record submitted by the parties. Dkt. 1 and Dkt. 15; Wisconsin v. Haakenstad, No. 11CF40 (St. Croix Cty. Cir. Ct. filed Feb. 4, 2011). All facts set forth below are undisputed.

         A. Warrant affidavit

         On November 18, 2010, law enforcement applied for a warrant to search Haakenstad's apartment. The application was supported by an affidavit from Brent Standaert, a member of the St. Croix Valley Drug Task Force at the St. Croix County Sheriffs Office. Standaert's affidavit contained information from Marty Folczyk, a City of Menominee detective, who had tips from an informant, M.H.

         Here is what Standaert's affidavit said. M.H. told Folczyk, who in turn told Standaert that:

On November 17, 2010, M.H. visited Haakenstad's apartment. Although Haakenstad had no methamphetamine at the time, he told M.H. that he would pick up an ounce later in the evening.
On November 18, 2010, M.H. and his companion drove to Haakenstad's apartment, and M.H.'s companion bought 4.4 grams of methamphetamine from Haakenstad. M.H. saw a large bag of methamphetamine on Haakenstad's coffee table.

         Folczyk told Standaert that:

On November 18, 2010, Folczyk had M.H. call Haakenstad and listened to the conversation on speakerphone and heard Haakenstad told M.H. that Haakenstad had 16 grams of methamphetamine remaining.
Police chief confirmed that Haakenstad's address provided by M.H. was correct.
M.H. “is known to the West Central Drug Task Force and has given good information in the past.”

Dkt. 15-8, at 2-3.[1] The government obtained a warrant and searched Haakenstad's apartment on November 18. The search uncovered drug paraphernalia and items that tested positive for methamphetamine and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The government charged Haakenstad with possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, possession of THC, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

         Haakenstad moved to suppress the evidence seized from the search of his apartment. He argued that Standaert's statement that M.H. “is known to the West Central Drug Task Force and has given good information in the past, ” was made with reckless disregard for the truth, and because of this defect in the affidavit, the evidence from the search must be suppressed. In his motion, Haakenstad requested a Franks/Mann hearing. Dkt. 19-2, at 3; see also Franks, 438 U.S. 154; State v. Mann, 123 Wis.2d 375, 367 N.W.2d 209 (1985). To determine whether a Franks/Mann hearing was necessary for Haakenstad's motion, the Circuit Court for St. Croix County held a hearing on April 22, 2013.

         B. April 22, 2013 hearing

         Before delving into what happened during the hearing, I begin with some legal background on Franks/Mann hearings. A criminal defendant is entitled to what is now known as a Franks hearing when he “makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit.” Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. At a Franks hearing the defendant has an opportunity to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged statement was intentionally falsified or made with reckless disregard for the truth. Id. at 156. If the defendant makes this showing, then the court excises the challenged statement from the affidavit and evaluates whether the remaining portions of the affidavit would have shown probable cause. Id. If the remaining portions would not have shown probable cause, then the warrant is void, and the court suppresses the evidence seized during the search executed under the warrant. Id. On the other hand, if the affidavit would have shown probable cause even without the challenged portion, then the court denies the motion to suppress. United States v. Mullins, 803 F.3d 858, 862 (7th Cir. 2015). The Franks decision led to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.