Category Archives: Franks doctrine

D.N.M.: Shared driveway outside of fence and gate was not curtilage

Defendant’s car was searched under the automobile exception in his driveway. There’s a fence and gate between the car on the driveway and the front door. All things considered under Dunn, this driveway is not the curtilage. “The driveway is … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Franks doctrine, Search incident | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Shared driveway outside of fence and gate was not curtilage

CA8: Judge gets no qualified or judicial immunity for locking up children who didn’t want to go with a parent

A judge gets no qualified or judicial immunity for ordering children locked up for refusing to leave court with a parent they didn’t want to go with. In a prior appeal, “the children were beyond his contempt power and ‘judges … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Pretext, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA8: Judge gets no qualified or judicial immunity for locking up children who didn’t want to go with a parent

S.D.Ill.: Witness’s memory failure on the stand at trial didn’t support a Franks challenge

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising a Franks challenge mid-trial when a participant in the search warrant process had a memory failure on the stand as to something. Offutt v. United States, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231418 (S.D. Ill. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Inevitable discovery, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.Ill.: Witness’s memory failure on the stand at trial didn’t support a Franks challenge

E.D.Tenn.: Frisk of bag was reasonable, too

On the totality, there was reasonable suspicion for defendant’s Terry stop and then a frisk of his bag. United States v. Brooks, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231135 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 8, 2026).* “The Court finds that Cruz’s claim fails because, … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Scope of search, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Frisk of bag was reasonable, too

CA3: Coast-to-coast collective knowledge

Investigators in Pennsylvania could rely on another investigator at UCLA and combine their information for probable cause. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 29575 (3d Cir. Sep. 25, 2026). Petitioner’s 2255 Franks challenge fails to “plausibly allege” falsity. … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Collective knowledge, Excessive force, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA3: Coast-to-coast collective knowledge

VA: Stop at night in high-crime area with furtive movements made sweep of car reasonable after learning of def’s criminal history

The valid stop was at 1:45 am in a high crime area with furtive movements. They ordered the driver out and the passenger to stay in. The valid protective sweep of defendant’s car came after the officer learned of his … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Protective sweep | Comments Off on VA: Stop at night in high-crime area with furtive movements made sweep of car reasonable after learning of def’s criminal history

E.D.Mich.: Odor of burnt visible MJ is sufficient under federal law to establish PC

The odor of burnt marijuana and visible marijuana is sufficient under federal law to establish probable cause. United States v. Brewer, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197712 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 1, 2026). Defendant’s Franks challenge that the CIs were liars fails–the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Odor of burnt visible MJ is sufficient under federal law to establish PC

W.D.Wash.: No 2255 discovery of SW materials based on mere speculation

In this 2255, petitioner doesn’t get discovery of his search warrant materials. “The Government responds that Wilson ‘has failed to provide good cause as to why he is entitled to the materials that he requests’ and instead, he ‘only speculates … Continue reading →

Posted in Discovery, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Neutral and detached magistrate | Comments Off on W.D.Wash.: No 2255 discovery of SW materials based on mere speculation

CA3: Officers made reasonable effort to determine whether house was multi-use

Defendant lived on the second floor of a house that was not zoned as an apartment building and had no outward appearance there were separate residences. The warrant was for the whole place. The downstairs resident wasn’t the person they … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off on CA3: Officers made reasonable effort to determine whether house was multi-use

CA11: Service of SW without attachments isn’t 4A violation

Defendant’s effort to subpoena five witnesses in support of his Franks challenge was properly denied. Their testimony would be material to the outcome, and they were also speculative. As to the execution of the warrant, the fact he got a … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Immigration arrests, immigration stops, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA11: Service of SW without attachments isn’t 4A violation

WA: Sweat patch as condition of release violated state constitution’s privacy provision

The court imposing a sweat patch on plaintiff violated his state constitutional privacy rights. Lesser intrusive measures are required. Bailey-Cobb v. Snohomish Cty. Dist. Court, 2026 Wash. App. LEXIS 1871 (Aug. 17, 2026). Plaintiff stated a claim for his severe … Continue reading →

Posted in Body searches, Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, State constitution | Comments Off on WA: Sweat patch as condition of release violated state constitution’s privacy provision

Cal.1: Search condition for mental health diversion was within court’s discretion

The trial court acted within its statutory discretion imposing a search condition on defendant during his mental health diversion. His criminal history justified it. Thompson v. Superior Court, 2026 Cal. App. LEXIS 459 (1st Dist. July 30, 2026). One defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search, Standing | Comments Off on Cal.1: Search condition for mental health diversion was within court’s discretion

PA: For resisting arrest on a warrant, the state has to prove the warrant valid

“To prove the lawful arrest element of resisting arrest where the resisted arrest is premised on an arrest or bench warrant, the Commonwealth must produce evidence of the validity of a warrant beyond its mere existence. Because the Commonwealth failed … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on PA: For resisting arrest on a warrant, the state has to prove the warrant valid

PA: Private hunting lands were not open fields under state constitution

The Pennsylvania Constitution’s search and seizure provision extends to “possessions,” something broader than “effects” under the Fourth Amendment. The Pennsylvania court concludes that private hunting lands were not blanket open fields where wildlife officers could just enter. The court also … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Open fields, State constitution | Comments Off on PA: Private hunting lands were not open fields under state constitution

E.D.Pa.: Voluntary statement during search that “everything is mine” was admissible

Voluntary statement from the handcuffed defendant during the search of his house when he saw his handcuffed girlfriend crying that “everything is mine” were admissible. United States v. Espinosa, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160387 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2026). Defendant’s … Continue reading →

Posted in Body cameras, Custody, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Voluntary statement during search that “everything is mine” was admissible

LA5: Nervousness and avoiding getting on airplane to LAX (a source city) was RS

DEA and State DTF officers had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant departing the NOLA airport for LAX (a source city) when he saw them as they looked all nervous and then walked away from boarding the airplane. State v. Wells, … Continue reading →

Posted in Airport searches, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on LA5: Nervousness and avoiding getting on airplane to LAX (a source city) was RS

DC: Officers were a good ways away from def when he fled without any apparent reason

“We now hold that the officers had the requisite reasonable articulable suspicion to justify their seizure of D.W. when they grabbed his leg. We reach that conclusion largely because D.W. ran upon the mere sight of police officers approaching from … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on DC: Officers were a good ways away from def when he fled without any apparent reason

N.D.Ga.: Standing has to be shown for the time of the search, not at some time in the past

“Earl was required to show, not that he had an expectation of privacy in the home at some time, but that he had that expectation at the time of the search. United States v. Brazel, 102 F.3d 1120, 1148 (11th … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Standing has to be shown for the time of the search, not at some time in the past

E.D.N.Y.: Flight out a window is exigency for police to enter

Defendant was wanted for a shooting incident in Flatbush, Brooklyn caught on video. When they came to where they suspected he was, he attempted to flee out a window. That gave exigency to enter. United States v. Richard, 2026 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Seizure | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Flight out a window is exigency for police to enter

FL: Violation of knock-and-announce statute doesn’t require exclusion

A violation of the knock-and-announce statute for serving search warrants doesn’t require exclusion of the evidence under Hudson, which is followed. State v. Times, 2026 Fla. LEXIS 982 (June 25, 2026). “Idling” is not a crime for a passenger vehicle … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Knock and announce, Scope of search | Comments Off on FL: Violation of knock-and-announce statute doesn’t require exclusion