Category Archives: Franks doctrine

PA: No REP in data on use of EBT card

Appellant’s argument that the search incident failed because of a lack of an arrest warrant wasn’t presented below so it’s waived. He had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the data on his EBT card that Wawa wouldn’t turn over … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on PA: No REP in data on use of EBT card

TX5: Warrantless removal of GSR was reasonable

Warrantless swabbing for GSR from defendant’s hands was reasonable because of exigency because it could likely be immediately lost. Argumedo v. State, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3375 (Tex. App. – Dallas May 16, 2025). Defendant’s Franks claim is more like … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on TX5: Warrantless removal of GSR was reasonable

S.D.N.Y.: Collective knowledge doctrine in CA2 only applies to warrantless searches, not a Franks challenge

Defendant’s Franks claim fails. The omitted allegedly exculpatory evidence either wasn’t material to the probable cause finding or wasn’t known by law enforcement at the time the warrant issued. In this circuit, the collective knowledge doctrine applies to warrantless searches, … Continue reading

Posted in Collective knowledge, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Collective knowledge doctrine in CA2 only applies to warrantless searches, not a Franks challenge

E.D.Tenn.: Late discovery of a bodycam video supports reopening def’s Franks challenge

A late disclosed bodycam video support a Franks challenge, and defendant gets to reopen his suppression hearing. United States v. Price, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88965 (E.D. Tenn. May 9, 2025). A time gap in when a confederate checked into … Continue reading

Posted in Body cameras, Border search, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Late discovery of a bodycam video supports reopening def’s Franks challenge

CA3: Nodding yes to a request to search was consent

Defendant’s nodding yes to a request to search was consent to search the car. The officers might have believed he didn’t have standing since he was a mere passenger at the time. He didn’t mention facts supporting standing until at … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Consent, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA3: Nodding yes to a request to search was consent

CA4: Where materiality fails under Franks, falsity doesn’t matter

The district court concluded that there was no false statement for Franks purposes, but that doesn’t even have to be decided. It certainly wasn’t material. Hedgepeth v. Nash Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10868 (4th Cir. May 6, 2025).* It … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Nexus, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA4: Where materiality fails under Franks, falsity doesn’t matter

IL: Paperwork discrepancies permitted a truck safety inspection

Continuation of a commercial moving truck stop for a safety inspection was reasonable after there were “paperwork discrepancies.” People v. Ivanchuk, 2025 IL App (4th) 241230, 2025 Ill. App. LEXIS 856 (May 1, 2025). Mere negligent omissions for a Franks … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Community caretaking function, Franks doctrine, Privileges | Comments Off on IL: Paperwork discrepancies permitted a truck safety inspection

W.D.N.Y.: SW application wasn’t defective because it used “reasonable cause” instead of “probable cause”

The search warrant application wasn’t defective because it used “reasonable cause” instead of “probable cause.” They are interchangeable. United States v. Tundo, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84283 (W.D.N.Y. May 2, 2025). Four months of pole camera surveillance on the front … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Pole cameras, Probable cause | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: SW application wasn’t defective because it used “reasonable cause” instead of “probable cause”

CA4: SW affidavit not required to name an offender

A search warrant is about whether evidence would be found in the place to be searched, not whether there’s an offender. United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10138 (4th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025). 2255 petitioner’s Franks ineffective assistance … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Curtilage, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Warrant papers | Comments Off on CA4: SW affidavit not required to name an offender

CA9: Electronic monitoring condition of pretrial release was essentially a contract between def and court, thus consent

The Superior Court of San Francisco imposes electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial release. Because it’s essentially a contract between the defendant and court, it’s consent to EM for release. It also does not violate state separation of powers. … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, GPS / Tracking Data, Inventory, Private search, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CA9: Electronic monitoring condition of pretrial release was essentially a contract between def and court, thus consent

W.D.La.: Product of uncharged search of house comes in under 404(b)

Defendant was indicted for possession of drugs in a storage unit, but drugs and cash were also found in his house. That can come in under 404(b). United States v. Harris, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75696 (W.D. La. Apr. 21, … Continue reading

Posted in Administrative search, Admissibility of evidence, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on W.D.La.: Product of uncharged search of house comes in under 404(b)

W.D.Pa.: Def doesn’t overcome common law presumption SW records are public records

Defendant objects to the search warrant materials being unsealed on the docket. He has not overcome the common law presumption of open access. The First Amendment right of public access is even broader. These papers are unsealed. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Strip search, Warrant papers | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Def doesn’t overcome common law presumption SW records are public records

S.D.N.Y.: SW affidavit differs from crime in indictment such that court grants Franks hearing

Because the affidavit for search warrant differs so much from the ultimate crime defendants were charged with, defendant at least gets a Franks hearing. There’s some suggestion of materiality, but that’s not decided yet. United States v. Peraire-Bueno, 2025 U.S. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Standing | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: SW affidavit differs from crime in indictment such that court grants Franks hearing

CA6: Ptf’s § 1983 case over his traffic stop and tickets barred by Younger

Plaintiff was ticketed by officers of the Kirkland PD, one for having a fictitious license plate, and he sued in federal court claiming Fourth Amendment and right to travel violations and the city had no jurisdiction over him. Younger bars … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on CA6: Ptf’s § 1983 case over his traffic stop and tickets barred by Younger

CA1: Because it’s still a federal crime, state decrim of MJ didn’t defeat PC

While Rhode Island had decriminalized small amounts of marijuana, the fact it’s still a federal crime permitted officers to prolong the stop. United States v. Pavao, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9156 (1st Cir. Apr. 17, 2025). 2255 petitioner’s Franks claim … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA1: Because it’s still a federal crime, state decrim of MJ didn’t defeat PC

E.D.Wis.: Affidavit’s statement def was in surveillance video was reasonable and not reckless

Officer’s statement that defendant was in a surveillance video was a reasonable conclusion, and not a reckless overstatement for Franks. United States v. Warren, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70293 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 14, 2025).* Defendant passed up a conditional plea … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: Affidavit’s statement def was in surveillance video was reasonable and not reckless

D.Alaska: Recklessly omitted text messages were material to PC finding; suppression granted

Omitted text messages were material to the probable cause finding, and the officer was at least reckless in not including them. Franks satisfied: “Therefore, the Court agrees with Judge Scoble’s reasoning, adopts his analysis, and finds that, had Detective Ruble … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standards of review, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on D.Alaska: Recklessly omitted text messages were material to PC finding; suppression granted

D.N.J.: Boxing in def’s car was a seizure

“Law enforcement’s conduct here—boxing in Deas’ Kia, ordering both Defendants out of the car, and placing them in handcuffs—falls within the scope of a seizure.” It was with reasonable suspicion. Then a dog alerted, then they got a warrant. United … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Seizure | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Boxing in def’s car was a seizure

C.D.Cal.: Affidavit’s failure to mention state court suppressed the same search was material and reckless under Franks

The affiant’s failure to include that a state court suppressed the underlying search was material to probable cause in federal court. The state search was based on the probation search exception, but the target was off probation. “This omission created … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Probable cause | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Affidavit’s failure to mention state court suppressed the same search was material and reckless under Franks

CA3: Def’s being a manager of premises gave RS as to him under PA law

Defendant’s status as the manager of a lounge gave reasonable suspicion to detain him under Pennsylvania law for what was going on inside. United States v. Burgess, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7359 (3d Cir. Mar. 31, 2025). Plaintiff’s civil Franks … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA3: Def’s being a manager of premises gave RS as to him under PA law