Category Archives: Franks doctrine

MO: Telling def to “stay right there” and “sit down” was a seizure

Telling defendant to “stay right there” and “sit down” was a seizure, and here it was with reasonable suspicion. State v. Higgs, 2022 Mo. App. LEXIS 274 (May 3, 2022).* Probable cause was shown: “A reasonable judge could, and did, … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Seizure, Standing | Comments Off on MO: Telling def to “stay right there” and “sit down” was a seizure

S.D.Cal.: 4A violations are for suppression, not dismissal

“Searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment do not require dismissing an indictment; instead, the remedy is suppressing the evidence at trial.” United States v. Ramirez-Aleman, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77436 (S.D.Cal. Apr. 26, 2022). Defendant officers have … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress, Probable cause | Comments Off on S.D.Cal.: 4A violations are for suppression, not dismissal

CA6: Auto exception applies even where driver is detained

A vehicle is mobile for the automobile exception even though the driver is detained. United States v. Washington, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 11511 (6th Cir. Apr. 28, 2022). A bald tire in the back of a rental truck was so … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Standing | Comments Off on CA6: Auto exception applies even where driver is detained

Cal.: Exclusionary rule does not apply in child dependency litigation

The exclusionary rule does not apply in child dependency litigation. In re Christopher L., 2022 Cal. LEXIS 2313 (Apr. 25, 2022) (recognizing rule). “Hecke is correct that Detective Compton did not provide details of BSC’s criminal history or a description … Continue reading →

Posted in Custody, Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on Cal.: Exclusionary rule does not apply in child dependency litigation

N.D.Ala.: Imprecision in the SW affidavit isn’t a Franks violation

Imprecision in the affiant investigator’s words doesn’t equate to recklessness for Franks purposes. United States v. Tubbs, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73473 (N.D.Ala. Mar. 14, 2022).* Defendant’s alleged Franks violation wasn’t even material based on all the evidence that the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Reasonable suspicion, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Imprecision in the SW affidavit isn’t a Franks violation

CA8: Court can consider GFE rather than decide PC

“‘[T]his Court ‘may consider the applicability of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule,’ without addressing whether probable cause exists.” Here, there was enough to likely show probable cause so the officer reasonably believed in the validity of the warrant. … Continue reading →

Posted in Custody, Franks doctrine, Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA8: Court can consider GFE rather than decide PC

Three on Franks

This Franks argument fails. “Here, there is no indication that any false statement was intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included in the affidavit. Even assuming the information provided by the CI was false or misleading, there is … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on Three on Franks

CA6: All family members have common authority over common areas of the house

All family members have common authority over common areas of the house. United States v. Campany, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9518 (6th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022). Defendant’s Franks claim for ineffective assistance of counsel fails for failing to show what … Continue reading →

Posted in Apparent authority, Excessive force, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA6: All family members have common authority over common areas of the house

D.N.J.: That officers could have investigated more isn’t a Franks violation

“None of these allegations is sufficient to warrant a Franks hearing either. At bottom, Rodriguez is merely criticizing the tactics employed by the police during their investigation. See United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788, 791 (7th Cir. 2000) (explaining … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Staleness | Comments Off on D.N.J.: That officers could have investigated more isn’t a Franks violation

N.D.Okla.: Officer’s testimony of traffic offense wasn’t believed based on his words on video

“Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that Phillips’ testimony that he observed a lane violation prior to initiating a traffic stop is not credible. The only evidence tending to support the commission of a traffic violation is … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Scope of search | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: Officer’s testimony of traffic offense wasn’t believed based on his words on video

VA: Firefighters could call ME and police for dead body

When firefighters entered defendant’s property in response to a fire call, they found a body. It was within the scope of the fire entry to call the police and medical examiner. “Thus, all that the firefighters observed was no longer … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on VA: Firefighters could call ME and police for dead body

CA8: Car seizure for overtinting and inventory were reasonable

Defendant’s car was permissibly seized for overtinting, and the subsequent search was reasonable as inventory. United States v. Perez, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8697 (8th Cir. Apr. 1, 2022).* “Even assuming arguendo that Thrasher could make a substantial preliminary showing … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Inventory, Standards of review | Comments Off on CA8: Car seizure for overtinting and inventory were reasonable

CA7: Def’s detention during protective sweep looking for another was unreasonable

Defendant’s detention in an apartment building during a protective sweep for a fugitive that clearly wasn’t him was unreasonable. The district court’s denial of the motion to suppress is reversed. United States v. Segoviano, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 8771 (7th … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Protective sweep, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA7: Def’s detention during protective sweep looking for another was unreasonable

D.Ariz.: To overcome Stone bar, pet’r has to proffer something about being denied “full and fair opportunity” to litigate 4A claim

To overcome Stone in a 2254, the petitioner has to proffer that he was denied a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim. Failure to do so is fatal to claim. Bartels v. Arizona, 2022 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on D.Ariz.: To overcome Stone bar, pet’r has to proffer something about being denied “full and fair opportunity” to litigate 4A claim

IA: Boilerplate language alone in an affidavit for SW does not establish nexus

Boilerplate language alone in an affidavit for warrant does not establish nexus. State v. Bracy, 2022 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 29 (Mar. 18, 2022) (citing § 6.14 of Treatise (§ 3:13 of 3d ed.). Omitting a CI’s criminal history from the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Nexus, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on IA: Boilerplate language alone in an affidavit for SW does not establish nexus

NC: PC shown for SW for GPS monitoring device

There was probable cause shown for the search warrant for defendant’s GPS monitoring device and his house for evidence of murder. State v. Gallion, 2022-NCCOA-164, 2022 N.C. App. LEXIS 178 (Mar. 15, 2022). 2254 petitioner’s sole ground for relief is … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, GPS / Tracking Data, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on NC: PC shown for SW for GPS monitoring device

D.Md.: Covid helped explain the delay in SW for cell phone search

This cell phone was reasonably seized under a warrant. The second warrant was issued a few weeks later, but, because of covid, the delay was reasonable. United States v. Reaves, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43243 (D.Md. Mar. 9, 2022). “Defendant … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Md.: Covid helped explain the delay in SW for cell phone search

D.Neb.: Omitting that there was no prior indication of drug dealing from anticipatory SW application not material

Omitting from the affidavit for an anticipatory warrant that there was no prior indication of drug dealing at the location isn’t material for Franks purposes. United States v. Espinoza, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39195 (D.Neb. Jan. 28, 2022). [There’s always … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Neb.: Omitting that there was no prior indication of drug dealing from anticipatory SW application not material

WA: Covered stolen videogame console not “immediately apparent” for plain view

A covered suspected stolen Pac-Man videogame console was not in plain view because what was covered was not immediately apparent until uncovered. State v. Elwell, 2022 Wash. LEXIS 151 (Mar. 3, 2022) (on the entire record, however, this was harmless … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on WA: Covered stolen videogame console not “immediately apparent” for plain view

CA6: With multiple uses of excessive force, each must be analyzed

“Where ‘a plaintiff claims that excessive force was used multiple times, “the court must segment the incident into its constituent parts and consider the officer’s entitlement to qualified immunity at each step along the way.”’ Wright, 962 F.3d at 865 … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA6: With multiple uses of excessive force, each must be analyzed