Category Archives: Franks doctrine

CA1: Gunshot from within while waiting for SW justified entry and sweep

Police froze and surrounded defendant’s home while they sought a search warrant. While they were waiting, a gunshot came from within, so they entered in response. The government satisfied inevitable discovery even though this protective sweep ended up in the … Continue reading →

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Protective sweep, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA1: Gunshot from within while waiting for SW justified entry and sweep

N.D.Ga.: Reissuance of a better SW to Google after a motion to suppress wasn’t unreasonable

As to one challenged search of Google, when the government says it won’t use challenged evidence at trial, the motion to suppress becomes moot. A motion to suppress another search warrant to Google led to reissuance of a search warrant … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Independent source, Motion to suppress | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Reissuance of a better SW to Google after a motion to suppress wasn’t unreasonable

AF: Franks violation led to exclusion

Defendant showed a Franks violation for a reckless statement for a search authorization of his room for marijuana. Balancing the interests, the exclusionary rule would be applied. United States v. Hernandez, 2020 CCA LEXIS 362 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on AF: Franks violation led to exclusion

CA4: Potentially glaring Franks claim proved immaterial

Defendant’s Franks claim was based on the fact that one Blount lived at the place to be searched, and Blount was associated with 7 addresses. Blount, however, had been in prison and couldn’t have lived there for a while. Nevertheless, … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CA4: Potentially glaring Franks claim proved immaterial

N.D.Ohio: Paraphrasing and not quoting what a witness said isn’t a Franks violation

“Jones offers a laundry list of complaints about the text of the search warrant affidavit: … [¶] Jones fails to make a ‘substantial preliminary showing that specified portions of the affiant’s averments are deliberately or recklessly false.’ [Officer] Brotherton did … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on N.D.Ohio: Paraphrasing and not quoting what a witness said isn’t a Franks violation

D.Minn.: Apparent typo in a telephone number in a search warrant isn’t a Franks violation

An apparent typographical error in a telephone number in a search warrant isn’t a Franks violation. United States v. Green, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174674 (D. Minn. Sept. 23, 2020). Filter teams to protect privileged material are not per se … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Privileges | Comments Off on D.Minn.: Apparent typo in a telephone number in a search warrant isn’t a Franks violation

IA: All exculpatory evidence doesn’t have to be presented to issuing magistrate under Franks

“Case failed to make a preliminary showing to warrant a Franks hearing. See Baker, 925 N.W.2d at 615 (‘[A]n officer applying for a search warrant is not required to present all inculpatory and exculpatory evidence to the magistrate, only that … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on IA: All exculpatory evidence doesn’t have to be presented to issuing magistrate under Franks

CA5: When multiple SW applications were presented together, the others supported a “sparse” one

One affidavit of many involving the multiple search warrants presented at the same time was “sparse” but the issuing magistrate could rely on the totality. Reversed and remanded, however, for a Franks review which the district court declined to do. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA5: When multiple SW applications were presented together, the others supported a “sparse” one

CA3: Merely pleading snitches are unreliable isn’t a Franks offer of proof

“Rodriguez-Colon does not meet this [Franks] requirement. His challenge contains no offer of proof and merely questions the general reliability of confidential sources. For instance, he argued to the District Court that if granted a hearing, “[i]t is anticipated that … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA3: Merely pleading snitches are unreliable isn’t a Franks offer of proof

CA5: § 1983 4A claim that evidence was inadmissible at trial was Heck barred, and then waived on appeal

Plaintiff’s § 1983 Fourth Amendment claim was framed as a claim the evidence was inadmissible at trial. Thus it was barred. His appeal was over denial of IFP status, which was also denied, and he waived the Fourth Amendment claim … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Waiver | Comments Off on CA5: § 1983 4A claim that evidence was inadmissible at trial was Heck barred, and then waived on appeal

OH3: Contents of bookbag shown by baggies of drugs hanging out of it

Based on the officer’s observation of baggies of drugs hanging out of a bookbag, the contents were readily apparent. State v. Burroughs, 2020-Ohio-4417, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 3301 (3d Dist. Sept. 14, 2020). Defendant’s objection to the R&R had a … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on OH3: Contents of bookbag shown by baggies of drugs hanging out of it

CA5: Mistaken identity arrest for half brother with same name gets QI

Plaintiff’s case for a mistaken identity arrest when his half-brother with the same name was the target fails on qualified immunity. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979) is close enough to show qualified immunity. Nerio v. Derekevans, 2020 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA5: Mistaken identity arrest for half brother with same name gets QI

D.Idaho: Dep’t of Fish & Game checkpoint was reasonable

The Idaho Dep’t of Fish & Game division’s wildlife checkpoint here was reasonable under all the circumstances. Plaintiff wasn’t a hunter and his stop would have resulted in one question and he’d have been on his way. Tanner v. Schriever, … Continue reading →

Posted in Chekpoints, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.Idaho: Dep’t of Fish & Game checkpoint was reasonable

CA5: Alleged violations of the Posse Comitatus Act must be “widespread and repeated” to justify suppression

Alleged violations of the Posse Comitatus Act, here by AFOSI, must be “widespread and repeated” to justify suppression. Defendant didn’t show this was. United States v. Salinas, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28616 (5th Cir. Sept. 9, 2020). “A detective assigned … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA5: Alleged violations of the Posse Comitatus Act must be “widespread and repeated” to justify suppression

CA2: Omissions from affidavit were material and denied QI

District court’s denial of qualified immunity affirmed. Omissions from the affidavit for the search warrant were material to the finding of probable cause. Pourkavoos v. Town of Avon, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 28183 (2d Cir. Sept. 3, 2020):

Posted in Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA2: Omissions from affidavit were material and denied QI

S.D.Fla.: Deputy sheriff stated false imprisonment claim against ATF officers

Plaintiff, a Monroe County deputy sheriff, stated a claim so far for false imprisonment against ATF agents who stopped him for no reason while he was working Hurricane Irma in the Florida Keys. His excessive force claim, however, is dismissed. … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on S.D.Fla.: Deputy sheriff stated false imprisonment claim against ATF officers

W.D.Mo.: That later police reports would shed more light on affidavit for SW, that’s not a Franks issue

Affidavits for search warrants are presumed to be accurate under Franks, and that’s why the defense has to make a substantial preliminary showing of falsity. Alleging merely that other more timely reports would shed light on the subject is not … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Franks doctrine, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: That later police reports would shed more light on affidavit for SW, that’s not a Franks issue

OH2: Giving false name and DOB after SW executed supports obstruction charge

Defendant was removed from his house after a search warrant was served by the SWAT team. His false name and DOB to the officers supported his obstruction conviction. State v. Castleberry, 2020-Ohio-4233, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 3129 (2d Dist. Aug. … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Warrant execution | Comments Off on OH2: Giving false name and DOB after SW executed supports obstruction charge

CA6: Pleading false information used to get SW overcame QI at this stage

Pleading that defendants used false information to get a search warrant for them. That was enough to get around qualified immunity, and the district court erred in dismissing at this stage. Marvaso v. Sanchez, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26723 (6th … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Franks doctrine, Inevitable discovery, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA6: Pleading false information used to get SW overcame QI at this stage

OK: False name given during execution of SW admissible to impeach credibility

“The State’s questions about Appellant having given a false name to authorities during the execution of a search warrant earlier in the summer of 2015 was relevant as a general matter to impeach Appellant’s credibility.” Knapper v. State, 2020 OK … Continue reading →

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, Franks doctrine, Seizure | Comments Off on OK: False name given during execution of SW admissible to impeach credibility