United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION & ORDER
D. PETERSON District Judge.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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. 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.
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.
April 22, 2013 hearing
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 ...