Category Archives: Franks doctrine

CA7: A temporary “want” not based on PC or a judicial determination wasn’t a basis for entry

The city here uses a “temporary” want, not based on probable cause, to enter plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff stated a claim for failure to train that a warrant is required, not something based on the officer’s action. Milbeck v. George, 2026 … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA7: A temporary “want” not based on PC or a judicial determination wasn’t a basis for entry

E.D.Va.: Military search authorization was sufficiently particular for use in federal court

The military search authorization here was sufficiently particular and works in federal court. United States v. Guinsler, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63922 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2026). (§ 52.39 n.3). The state stipulated to a false fact in the search … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Military searches, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Va.: Military search authorization was sufficiently particular for use in federal court

W.D.N.Y.: Def had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte

Defendant had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte. On the merits his Franks challenge fails: “Even assuming arguendo that any of the above challenged statements could be considered false or misleading, Defendants have put forth no credible … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.N.Y.: Def had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte

N.D.W.Va.: Bare allegations of a Franks violation without a significant offer of proof is conjecture

Bare allegations of a Franks violation without a significant offer of proof is conjecture. Kokinda v. Foster, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60028 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 23, 2026).* Exigent circumstances justified the seizure of defendant’s cell phone, not just plain view, … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.W.Va.: Bare allegations of a Franks violation without a significant offer of proof is conjecture

D.N.D.: ALPR not a search

ALPR not a search. United States v. Lawrence, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56945 (D.N.D. Mar. 18, 2026). Failure to show materiality for Franks requires the court to also consider the elements of the crime being investigated. United States v. Engler, … Continue reading →

Posted in Automatic license plate readers, Burden of pleading, Custody, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.N.D.: ALPR not a search

DE: Lack of binding authority for 5A cell phone thumbprint claim means it’s denied

Trial counsel didn’t challenge the use of defendant’s thumbprint to access his cell phone, acknowledging case law against it being testimonial. “It does not appear that either this Court or the United States Supreme Court has addressed the issue. Nor … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Privileges, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on DE: Lack of binding authority for 5A cell phone thumbprint claim means it’s denied

D.D.C.: Challenging standing to object to a GJ subpoena can be waived

Standing to challenge a grand jury subpoena is like Fourth Amendment standing. It’s not jurisdictional, and it can be waived. “The Supreme Court has made clear that Fourth Amendment standing ‘is not a jurisdictional question’ but instead part ‘of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standing, Subpoenas / Nat'l Security Letters | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Challenging standing to object to a GJ subpoena can be waived

N.D.Ga.: A Franks violation isn’t shown to be reckless just because a factual mistake was repeated

“In his objections, Marshall adds other points to his substantial showing argument. First he argues recklessness can be inferred from the fact the agent made the same mistake twice: in the warrant affidavit and when interviewing Marshall ‘to convince him … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: A Franks violation isn’t shown to be reckless just because a factual mistake was repeated

D.Utah: Traffic stop on curtilage is still valid

A traffic stop on the curtilage affords police the ability to stop and inquire under Collins v. Virginia. “Curtilage is a concept that safeguards a person’s right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but it is not a … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Curtilage, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.Utah: Traffic stop on curtilage is still valid

N.D.Iowa: RS and PC for stop and then search, so justification for drug dog is irrelevant

Based on two bases of collective knowledge, the officer had justification for a stop and a search, so the justification for the drug dog isn’t even relevant. United States v. Carter, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45275 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 5, … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: RS and PC for stop and then search, so justification for drug dog is irrelevant

W.D.Pa.: Younger doctrine didn’t apply when plaintiff’s criminal case was over

Younger doctrine didn’t apply when plaintiff’s criminal case was over. Harris v. Trent, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42416 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 2, 2026). “Here, assuming the factual disputes in Franke’s favor, the relevant question is whether it was clearly established … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Younger doctrine didn’t apply when plaintiff’s criminal case was over

E.D.Mich.: Typo in SW affidavit didn’t justify Franks hearing

A single error in a warrant affidavit that should be characterized as a typo and not a false statement doesn’t justify a Franks hearing. United States v. McClain, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39891 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 26, 2026). Defendant had … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Franks doctrine, Mail and packages, Standing | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Typo in SW affidavit didn’t justify Franks hearing

CA6: Ptf’s expert in a civil Franks claim only provided a legal conclusion, and “That’s not enough”

Plaintiff in a civil Franks claim failed to show that the officer knowingly misrepresented facts. Of note, however, is that he used an expert witness on falsity which essentially only provided a legal conclusion. Chancellor v. Geelhood, 2026 U.S. App. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA6: Ptf’s expert in a civil Franks claim only provided a legal conclusion, and “That’s not enough”

CA6: Administrative search that is a ruse for a criminal search was clearly established as 4A violation

An administrative search that is a ruse for a criminal search was clearly established at the time this one happened. Qualified immunity denied. Generis Ent., LLC v. Donley, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 5197 (6th Cir. Feb. 19, 2026). Not the … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Administrative search, Franks doctrine, Pretext | Comments Off on CA6: Administrative search that is a ruse for a criminal search was clearly established as 4A violation

techdirt: It Looks Like The FBI Straight Up Lied To A Judge To Get Permission To Seize Georgia Voting Records

Begging the question: What consequences are there for a Franks violation, besides a Franks hearing and maybe just suppression of evidence? Or here, return of the evidence? Rebuke? Prosecution for false statement or worse? See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 (false … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on techdirt: It Looks Like The FBI Straight Up Lied To A Judge To Get Permission To Seize Georgia Voting Records

M.D.Fla.: SW return filed outside state law time limit isn’t a Franks issue

A search warrant return outside the state law time limit by law is not a Franks issue. United States v. Davis, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33100 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2026). Plaintiff “fails to specifically address, and thus waives any … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, GPS / Tracking Data, Warrant papers | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: SW return filed outside state law time limit isn’t a Franks issue

IA approves residence indicia warrant

This was a search warrant for indicia of defendant’s residence. State v. Uranga, 2026 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 20 (Feb. 13, 2026) (§ 56.18 n.2). Defendant was tried in 2012 and if his counsel had made a motion to suppress cell … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on IA approves residence indicia warrant

CNN: Fulton County accuses Justice Department of misleading the judge who approved elections office search warrant

CNN: Fulton County accuses Justice Department of misleading the judge who approved elections office search warrant by Tierney Sneed (“Officials in Fulton County, Georgia, accused the Justice Department of making “serious” omissions in the application the FBI filed to obtain … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property | Comments Off on CNN: Fulton County accuses Justice Department of misleading the judge who approved elections office search warrant

M.D.Fla.: In a 2254, court can decide petitioner loses on merits or deny relief on Stone, as it chooses

2254 petitioner loses on the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim, and the court can opt to do that or apply Stone and not decide it. Evans v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29920 n.2 (M.D. Fla. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on M.D.Fla.: In a 2254, court can decide petitioner loses on merits or deny relief on Stone, as it chooses

OH4: Inventory found pretextual

The inventory here was found pretextual by the way the officer conducted it; e.g., not using gloves until something was found [which says nothing to me]. State v. Clark, 2026-Ohio-447, 2026 Ohio App. LEXIS 510 (4th Dist. Feb. 5, 2026). … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative search, Franks doctrine, Inventory, Pretext, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on OH4: Inventory found pretextual