Category Archives: Franks doctrine

N.D.Ind.: Franks challenge in PC clothing fails for no offer of proof

“At first glance, the Defendant’s motion does not appear to be a true Franks hearing request as it does not appear to contest the veracity of the statements of the affiant or assert that she made false allegations. Rather, it … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Franks challenge in PC clothing fails for no offer of proof

CA6: Def waived Franks argument on appeal by only arguing PC below

Defendant’s Franks argument on appeal fails because the motion to suppress was based on a lack of probable cause and didn’t direct the court to any alleged false statement under Franks. United States v. Baker, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 113 … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Burden of proof, Franks doctrine, Waiver | Comments Off on CA6: Def waived Franks argument on appeal by only arguing PC below

CA8: Remodeler found video voyeur camera and conducted a private search then turned it over to police

A man remodeling defendant’s house found a USB port in the bathroom, and he gathered that the USB could be used to hook up a camera in the bathroom to record children visiting there. He took the device he found … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Private search | Comments Off on CA8: Remodeler found video voyeur camera and conducted a private search then turned it over to police

OH6: CI was identified and admitted his culpability and that bolstered PC

“The fact that Chad was an identified informant and that his statements acted as an admission of his own criminal activity bolstered his credibility. This when viewed collectively with the other three instances of drug activity set forth in the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on OH6: CI was identified and admitted his culpability and that bolstered PC

CAAF: Not all details of alleged offense need to be included in request for search authorization

The military trial judge erred in concluding that the search authorization required AFOSI complete information to determine probable cause for defendant’s DNA in a sex assault case. It’s not. Just because there were differing versions of how dressed the victim … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Military searches, Probable cause | Comments Off on CAAF: Not all details of alleged offense need to be included in request for search authorization

ND: Evidence seized by SW still needs to comply with rules of evidence to be admissible

Just because evidence was seized with a search warrant doesn’t make it admissible. The rules of evidence or other statute or rule still have to be complied with. City of Fargo v. Hofer, 2020 ND 252, 2020 N.D. LEXIS 264 … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on ND: Evidence seized by SW still needs to comply with rules of evidence to be admissible

W.D.Ky.: PC to arrest for a drug crime doesn’t require a completed crime

Probable cause for arrest because of planning to commit a drug crime based on corroborated CI information without the drug transaction even happening. United States v. Kristopher, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236421 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 16, 2020) [e.g., attempt, conspiracy]. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on W.D.Ky.: PC to arrest for a drug crime doesn’t require a completed crime

N.D.Iowa: SW affidavit was sloppy and partly misleading, but not intentionally so

“A substantial basis existed for the court to determine probable cause existed on the face of the warrant affidavit.” It was, however, sloppy and partly misleading, but, on the totality there is no Franks violation. United States v. Johnson, 2020 … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standards of review | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: SW affidavit was sloppy and partly misleading, but not intentionally so

OH6: When lack of PC for a SW is the issue, a suppression hearing isn’t required: it’s a question of law

When the defendant moves to suppress a search warrant claiming only a lack of probable cause, a hearing isn’t required. It’s then a mixed question of law and fact (mostly law). State v. Holt, 2020-Ohio-6649, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 4515 … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standards of review, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on OH6: When lack of PC for a SW is the issue, a suppression hearing isn’t required: it’s a question of law

E.D.N.Y.: Valid strategic reasons for not using SW affidavit at trial

Defendant claimed perjury at trial because search warrant affidavits had information contrary to the trial testimony. There were good strategic reasons for not putting the affidavit in evidence. “Presumably, in deciding this claim, it is only appropriate to consider evidence … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Valid strategic reasons for not using SW affidavit at trial

NY: Reversal for 4A violation isn’t “favorable termination” for malicious prosecution claim

Reversal because of a Fourth Amendment violation isn’t a “favorable termination” for malicious prosecution claims. Butler v. City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 33363(U), 2020 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10130 (N.Y. Co. Oct. 14, 2020) (Martinez v. City of … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches | Comments Off on NY: Reversal for 4A violation isn’t “favorable termination” for malicious prosecution claim

CA9: Changing allegedly offending officer in Franks challenge on appeal was waiver

Defendant’s Franks challenge to one officer’s alleged misstatements were changed on appeal to involve another officer. This was waiver. United States v. Arnold, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 37199 (9th Cir. Nov. 25, 2020). In the college admissions scam case, “Here, … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Waiver | Comments Off on CA9: Changing allegedly offending officer in Franks challenge on appeal was waiver

E.D.Tenn.: Def doesn’t even attempt a Franks offer of proof and it fails

“Defendant fails to provide the requisite offer of proof to make a substantial preliminary showing that Agent Celeste intentionally or recklessly included false information in the Affidavit. Likewise, defendant fails to explain the absence of such an offer of proof, … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Def doesn’t even attempt a Franks offer of proof and it fails

CA9: Mid-trial change in testimony from SW affidavit may entitle def to Franks hearing, but here issue wasn’t timely raised

Without deciding whether to follow the Fourth Circuit (United States v. White, 850 F.3d 667, 673 (4th Cir. 2017)) holding that trial testimony differing from a search warrant affidavit entitles the defendant to a mid-trial Franks hearing, here the issue … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA9: Mid-trial change in testimony from SW affidavit may entitle def to Franks hearing, but here issue wasn’t timely raised

D.N.J.: “The goal is a difficult one to achieve because Franks is narrow in its scope and miserly in the relief it offers.”

After four days of suppression hearing on a Franks issue, the court doesn’t find the discrepancy to be deliberately false. “Put more directly: West doesn’t have the argument of reasonable doubt as to what the police said or did so … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.N.J.: “The goal is a difficult one to achieve because Franks is narrow in its scope and miserly in the relief it offers.”

N.D.Cal.: Failure to mention denial of a TRO in civil litigation over similar issue material enough to get Franks hearing

The fact a TRO had been denied in a civil case involving some of the same facts was potentially material under Franks, and he gets a Franks hearing. Also, defendants have no standing in the search of a co-conspirator’s home. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Failure to mention denial of a TRO in civil litigation over similar issue material enough to get Franks hearing

AZ: CSLI order here in 2014 wasn’t a “warrant” but it complies with GFE

Also in a death penalty case, defendant’s CSLI was obtained by court order four years before Carpenter. The court finds that, while it wouldn’t treat the “order” as the functional equivalent of a search warrant [“reasonable grounds” wasn’t probable cause; … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, State constitution | Comments Off on AZ: CSLI order here in 2014 wasn’t a “warrant” but it complies with GFE

D.Neb.: PC for def’s vehicle leaving the scene of a shooting led to nexus to his house

“As explained, witnesses saw a dark colored vehicle speeding away from the scene of the May 27, 2020 shooting and at least two witnesses believe the vehicle was a Nissan. At the same time, police surveillance puts Defendant’s gray Nissan … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Nexus, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Neb.: PC for def’s vehicle leaving the scene of a shooting led to nexus to his house

E.D.Pa.: When dwelling was found to be multi-unit, the search was limited to the proper one; ER should not be applied because the officer acted in complete good faith

Defendant failed to make a substantial preliminary showing for Franks purposes that the officer recklessly disregarded the fact there could be two residential units in the building he was seeking the search warrant for. He reviewed property records and Google … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Scope of search | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: When dwelling was found to be multi-unit, the search was limited to the proper one; ER should not be applied because the officer acted in complete good faith

PA: CSLI warrant was particular with phone number and time, without name of owner

CSLI warrant was particular when it described the phone number and time period and didn’t have to name the phone owner. Commonwealth v. Davis, 2020 Pa. Super. LEXIS 885 (Oct. 23, 2020). The officer spent a week corroborating the CI, … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Cell site location information, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on PA: CSLI warrant was particular with phone number and time, without name of owner