Category Archives: Franks doctrine

CA4: “[T]he ability to execute a search does not necessarily imply power to execute a search warrant.”

“[T]he ability to execute a search does not necessarily imply power to execute a search warrant.” Osmon v. United States, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 9177 (4th Cir. Apr. 18, 2023). Defendant’s Franks motion fails because there’s no offer of proof … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Staleness, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA4: “[T]he ability to execute a search does not necessarily imply power to execute a search warrant.”

CA9: Mere typo in SW affidavit doesn’t support Franks challenge

Defendant’s Franks challenge was conclusory and based on mere typographical errors. United States v. Howard, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 9069 (9th Cir. Apr. 17, 2023). Habeas petitioner’s admission of procedural default of his Fourth Amendment claim was an admission there … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Inevitable discovery, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on CA9: Mere typo in SW affidavit doesn’t support Franks challenge

CA4: CI’s 911 call showing stress of a startling event was reliable

A CI’s 911 call “‘under the stress of excitement caused by a startling event’ (making the call less likely to be preplanned),” was reliable enough for reasonable suspicion. Torres v. Ball, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 9076 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Independent source, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on CA4: CI’s 911 call showing stress of a startling event was reliable

M.D.Fla.: Geofence SW decided on GFE alone

In this Hobbs Act robbery case, ATF got a geofence warrant to attempt to isolate who was committing a string of robberies in the Tampa Bay area. Instead of even considering the merits, the court goes directly to the good … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of proof, Franks doctrine, geofence, Good faith exception | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: Geofence SW decided on GFE alone

E.D.Va.: Seizing def as he was opening his door was an invasion of the curtilage without exigency

After an attempted traffic stop, following defendant to his front door and stopping him after the screen door was opened in between it and the front door was curtilage, even in an apartment building. There was no exigency justifying the … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: Seizing def as he was opening his door was an invasion of the curtilage without exigency

NY Orange Co.: Reasonableness of seizure of firearms under 2A and 4A depends on court order, due process, and objective showing of mental impairment

Following another county court, this one also holds that Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights are both fundamental and an order removing firearms must be based on finding of mental impairment and due process. R.M. v. C.M., 2023 NY Slip … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Seizure | Comments Off on NY Orange Co.: Reasonableness of seizure of firearms under 2A and 4A depends on court order, due process, and objective showing of mental impairment

OH5: Admission of MJ but no MMJ card was PC

Admission there was marijuana in the car and nobody had a MMJ card was probable cause. State v. Hale, 2023-Ohio-1057, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 1025 (5th Dist. Mar. 30, 2023). A conclusory allegation that false information in an affidavit for … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Overseizure, Probable cause | Comments Off on OH5: Admission of MJ but no MMJ card was PC

CA7: Prima facie Franks violation made not disclosing CI’s motives; remanded

Defendant made his prima facie case of a Franks violation, and he was entitled to a hearing. The informants were involved in a love quadrangle not revealed to the warrant issuing judge. Analyzing the affidavit sentence by sentence, the omissions … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Waiver | Comments Off on CA7: Prima facie Franks violation made not disclosing CI’s motives; remanded

N.D.Ga.: Failure to specify how the R&R was deficient on PC finding was waiver

“The Eleventh Circuit has made clear that a party must ‘pinpoint those portions of the magistrate’s report that the district court must specially consider.’ Schultz, 565 F.3d at 1361. Defendant has not done so here. In sum, Defendant’s one-sentence statement … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standards of review | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Failure to specify how the R&R was deficient on PC finding was waiver

CA7: Def seen on his way to a controlled buy was PC

There was probable cause for the search of defendant’s car stopped on the way to a controlled buy. United States v. Coates, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 6108 (7th Cir. Mar. 15, 2023).* Unreasonable responses from defendant stopping at a salvage … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA7: Def seen on his way to a controlled buy was PC

CA10: Overlong stop didn’t cause independent search incident

Defendant was subjected to a search incident for false identification. His overlong stop otherwise didn’t cause that. United States v. Anderson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5997 (10th Cir. Mar. 14, 2023).* “Teixeira struggles to throw shade on the reliability of … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Independent source, Search incident, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA10: Overlong stop didn’t cause independent search incident

CA3: SWs based on inference alone risk failing on nexus; here, however, GFE applies

The affidavit could have been stronger because more information was available and not provided the USMJ. All things considered, it wasn’t so devoid of probable cause that the good faith exception applies. The court cautioned: “As Magistrate Judges may draw … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Probable cause | Comments Off on CA3: SWs based on inference alone risk failing on nexus; here, however, GFE applies

OH6: Officer coming to front door to knock who pauses to listen to voices inside doesn’t violate 4A

On a DV call, the officer approached the front door of defendant’s house to knock, but he paused to listen to voices inside. That listening before knocking was not an unreasonable search. State v. Kunkle, 2023-Ohio-661, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Franks doctrine, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on OH6: Officer coming to front door to knock who pauses to listen to voices inside doesn’t violate 4A

CA9: “Clearly established law” in one sentence

“Cardenas has not identified any case holding that police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by making an arrest under similar circumstances, and we are not aware of any such case.” Cardenas v. Saladen, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5091 (9th Cir. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: “Clearly established law” in one sentence

WaPo: Jury awards Va. teacher $5 million over wrongful sex abuse case [Franks violation omitting alibi]

WaPo: Jury awards Va. teacher $5 million over wrongful sex abuse case by Tom Jackman (The arrest and search warrant affidavit violated Franks because it alleged phone records backed up the young man’s claims, but they were never checked or … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on WaPo: Jury awards Va. teacher $5 million over wrongful sex abuse case [Franks violation omitting alibi]

M.D.Ga.: No standing in packages sent to one’s address but with all different names on them

Defendant failed to show standing in packages searched coming to an address he claimed as his “primary address,” but the addressee and sender were not him. United States v. Williams, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26755 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 16, 2023). … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Mail and packages, Standing, Warrant papers | Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: No standing in packages sent to one’s address but with all different names on them

E.D.Va.: Search of cell phone at school for explicit photos of 14-year-old reasonable under T.L.O.

A 13-year-old male student was showing explicit pictures of a 14-year-old girl on his phone at school. The search of the phone by school officials was reasonable under T.L.O., and it led him to juvenile court. O.W. v. Sch. Bd. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Inevitable discovery, School searches | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: Search of cell phone at school for explicit photos of 14-year-old reasonable under T.L.O.

D.Alaska: Def’s Franks motion is granted; PC lacking without false statements

The motion to suppress for a Franks violation is granted. The officer made several material recklessly false statements in support of the probable cause. United States v. Wallace, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21659 (D. Alaska Feb. 8, 2023).* There was … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Alaska: Def’s Franks motion is granted; PC lacking without false statements

M.D.Ala.: A Franks challenge that appears only to be an attempt to examine the CI fails

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails on recklessness. Moreover, it really is just a desire to cross-examine the CI. “Neal’s request for a Franks hearing also falls short for a separate, independent reason: contrary to the requirements of Franks, Neal’s application for … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: A Franks challenge that appears only to be an attempt to examine the CI fails

IL: Circumstances made SW affidavit admissible at trial

The trial court abused its discretion in not permitting the defense to use the search warrant affidavit at trial that showed the warrant was targeting another person for other things other than what was found. The court cautions this may … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IL: Circumstances made SW affidavit admissible at trial