Category Archives: Franks doctrine

E.D.Cal.: Order to roll down heavily tinted car window is not a search

The order to a motorist to lower his window is not a search, despite the fact the windows were heavily tinted and it made the interior more visible. Two pounds of cannabis on the car seat was probable cause for … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Search | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Order to roll down heavily tinted car window is not a search

E.D.Mich.: No REP in attorney-client communication in jail 8′ from jailer

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment complaint that attorney-client communications in jail were overheard does not survive summary judgment. He was a mere eight feet from the jailer who could clearly overhear everything. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: No REP in attorney-client communication in jail 8′ from jailer

CA9: Joint Cambodian-U.S. search unlawful under Cambodian law not unlawful here; exclusionary rule not applied

Defendant was the subject of a joint raid in Cambodia by local and U.S. officers. The search of defendant’s room was held unlawful under Cambodian law because there was no written consent of the owner, something with no counterpart in … Continue reading →

Posted in Conflict of laws, Exclusionary rule, Foreign searches, Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: Joint Cambodian-U.S. search unlawful under Cambodian law not unlawful here; exclusionary rule not applied

CA10: Govt has to be shown to have property to be ordered to return it under Rule 41(g)

The district court lacked jurisdiction to order return of property under Rule 41(g) because it could not be shown that the government was in possession of the hard drive defendant sought return of. United States v. Toombs, 2023 U.S. App. … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on CA10: Govt has to be shown to have property to be ordered to return it under Rule 41(g)

E.D.N.Y.: Def prevails on a Franks challenge on what he was carrying into his house seen on pole camera

Working from a hearing with a screen shot of a pole camera video, the court concludes that the officer stating defendant was holding a rifle was ultimately with reckless disregard of the truth. Defendant argued he was holding a bouquet … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Pole cameras | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Def prevails on a Franks challenge on what he was carrying into his house seen on pole camera

W.D.Mich.: When the question of PC for a warrant is close, there’s still a substantial basis for finding PC and GFE

The question of probable cause to search these packages was a close call. There clearly was at least reasonable suspicion and some of the same facts support probable cause. On the totality, there was at least a substantial basis for … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.Mich.: When the question of PC for a warrant is close, there’s still a substantial basis for finding PC and GFE

WA: Driver couldn’t consent to search of passenger’s backpacks

Defendant was in a car that was stopped for a traffic offense. He had warrants and he tried to flee the scene, but didn’t get far. In the car were his backpacks. The driver consented to a search of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Custody, Franks doctrine, Scope of search, Voluntariness | Comments Off on WA: Driver couldn’t consent to search of passenger’s backpacks

AZ: Confession obtained after Franks violation should have been suppressed, too

The trial court found a Franks violation from the officer overstating with reckless disregard the facts, and it suppressed the search. Then came defendant’s statements based on the false search warrant affidavit. The trial court did not suppress, but the … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Warrant papers | Comments Off on AZ: Confession obtained after Franks violation should have been suppressed, too

D.Colo.: Bank records have no REP so they can be obtained for restitution purposes

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records, and the government can obtain them to enforce a restitution order. United States v. Osborn, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90076 (D. Colo. May 23, 2023). Defendant doesn’t get a Franks … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on D.Colo.: Bank records have no REP so they can be obtained for restitution purposes

OH7: Officer taking the Fifth at suppression hearing because of other matters doesn’t prove Franks violation

At defendant’s suppression hearing, one of the officers was relieved of duty due to other misconduct, and he took the Fifth. On what remains in the affidavit and on the totality doesn’t otherwise show a Franks violation. State v. Hartung, … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH7: Officer taking the Fifth at suppression hearing because of other matters doesn’t prove Franks violation

M.D.Ga.: No right to challenge SW before execution

It isn’t apparent that there’s a right to challenge a search warrant before it is executed. (Rule 17 covers motions to quash subpoenas.) Even if there was, defendant doesn’t carry his burden. United States v. Crumpton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Body searches, Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: No right to challenge SW before execution

CA8: SW issuing judge not “neutral and detached” just because he didn’t ask questions

A search warrant in Killeen, Texas was issued to look for evidence of a Hobbs Act murder in Lincoln, Nebraska. The affidavit combined information from Texas and Nebraska. There was potential confusion as to whose information was whose but it … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Neutral and detached magistrate | Comments Off on CA8: SW issuing judge not “neutral and detached” just because he didn’t ask questions

CA2: Inventory policy here was attached to pleadings and sufficed

The vehicle inventory search was testified to be within ATF policy, which was attached to the pleadings, and it was. United States v. Brack, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12197 (2d Cir. May 18, 2023). Officers observed two people making likely … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Inventory, Probable cause, Waiver | Comments Off on CA2: Inventory policy here was attached to pleadings and sufficed

CA9: SW application made “under penalty of perjury” satisfies the “oath or affirmation” requirement

A search warrant application made “under penalty of perjury” satisfies the “oath or affirmation” requirement. United States v. Morrow, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 11933 (9th Cir. May 16, 2023). Defendant prevailed on the merits of his honest services wire fraud … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Oath or affirmation, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: SW application made “under penalty of perjury” satisfies the “oath or affirmation” requirement

GA: Grant of Franks motion is subject to de novo review

The court erred in finding a Franks violation without considering whether the challenged representation in the warrant was made knowingly, intentionally, or in reckless disregard for the truth. On de novo review, that the trial court erred in finding there … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on GA: Grant of Franks motion is subject to de novo review

TN: Bounty hunter is not a state actor for 4A

A bailbond bounty hunter is not a state actor for the Fourth Amendment. State v. Wojnarek, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 160 (May 10, 2023). A Delaware JP issued this search warrant, and it was with probable cause. United States … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Private search, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on TN: Bounty hunter is not a state actor for 4A

CA8: Child’s statement there was a gun in felon’s house was PC

Defendant’s child saying “my daddy’s has a gun in there” was sufficient for issuing a search warrant for felon in possession. United States v. Watkins, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 11303 (8th Cir. May 9, 2023).* Driving with an allegedly purloined … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA8: Child’s statement there was a gun in felon’s house was PC

D.P.R.: Def’s declaration of a fact dispute didn’t rise to a Franks violation

Defendant’s own declaration that he was outside the apartment when the affidavit said he was inside was just a swearing match, and it didn’t raise a sufficient Franks challenge. United States v. Pierret-Mercedes, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79252 (D.P.R. May … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Def’s declaration of a fact dispute didn’t rise to a Franks violation

CA10: Def’s response ‘I don’t have a backpack’ was abandonment of the backpack

“Mr. Porter nonetheless attempts to distinguish this case from our other abandonment cases, claiming that in those cases, the defendant’s denial of ownership was clear and unequivocal. But it is hard to imagine a statement plainer than ‘I don’t have … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Franks doctrine, Private search | Comments Off on CA10: Def’s response ‘I don’t have a backpack’ was abandonment of the backpack

CA8: Omission of fact CI lied about prior murder for hire schemes wasn’t material enough where one recorded ptf

This was a murder for hire scheme. The affiant had good information that the CI was a notorious liar, having falsely alleged other schemes in the past. Here, however, there was “powerful” evidence of probable cause in recordings to back … Continue reading →

Posted in Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on CA8: Omission of fact CI lied about prior murder for hire schemes wasn’t material enough where one recorded ptf