Category Archives: Franks doctrine

OH12: Officer’s reasonable mistake on traffic violation didn’t void stop

Did defendant violate the turn signal ordinance by not signaling his turn until already stopped? It doesn’t matter. “Ultimately, though, we need not decide whether Bryant actually violated the turn-signal ordinance. Even if the answer is unclear, Officer Singleton’s stop … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonableness | Comments Off on OH12: Officer’s reasonable mistake on traffic violation didn’t void stop

ID: Potential for destruction of evidence on cell phone was justification for its seizure

Defendant was reported for video voyeurism of his stepdaughter in the bathroom, and police got his phone, telling him they were seizing it. Then they got a warrant. The potential for destruction of evidence was sufficient justification for a warrantless … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches, Strip search | Comments Off on ID: Potential for destruction of evidence on cell phone was justification for its seizure

CA9: No QI for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant

No qualified immunity for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant. Gibson v. City of Portland, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2646 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2026). As to Franks: “Even if there were a material omission, inclusion … Continue reading →

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA9: No QI for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant

IL: Failure to conduct a preliminary hearing for PC mooted by conviction

Failure to conduct a preliminary hearing to establish probable cause is mooted by defendant’s conviction after trial. People v. Chambliss, 2026 IL 130585, 2025 Ill. LEXIS 7 (Jan. 23, 2026). “Lucas claims that Rubenstahl violated her Fourth Amendment right to … Continue reading →

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on IL: Failure to conduct a preliminary hearing for PC mooted by conviction

KS: Geofence warrant valid under GFE

This geofence warrant was valid by the good faith exception. State v. Mitchell-Pennington, 2026 Kan. App. LEXIS 6 (Jan. 23, 2026). The omitted facts merely clarified, not defeated, probable cause. The motion to suppress was properly denied. Urrutia v. State, … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Cell phones, Consent, Franks doctrine, geofence, Good faith exception | Comments Off on KS: Geofence warrant valid under GFE

CA7: Stop at night in a high crime area and furtive movements justified protective sweep of car

Defendant was stopped in a high crime area at night, and his furtive movements in the car justified a protective sweep of the car. United States v. Erving, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 1377 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2026).* Defendant’s car … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA7: Stop at night in a high crime area and furtive movements justified protective sweep of car

WA: SW at 6 am, ziptied, questioned, but told he wasn’t under arrest is still custody

Defendant was in custody for Miranda when a warrant was executed at his house at 6 am and he was taken outside, separated from his family, and ziptied but told he was not under arrest. State v. Magana-Arevalo, 2026 Wash. … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Custody, Franks doctrine, Seizure | Comments Off on WA: SW at 6 am, ziptied, questioned, but told he wasn’t under arrest is still custody

MA: Missing juvenile in BOLO was subject to community caretaking function

On a traffic stop, the juvenile was recognized from a BOLO as missing. That then involved the community caretaking function. Commonwealth v. Demos D., 2026 Mass. LEXIS 6 (Jan. 13, 2026). There was reasonable suspicion for stopping plaintiff where he … Continue reading →

Posted in Community caretaking function, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MA: Missing juvenile in BOLO was subject to community caretaking function

E.D.Okla.: Def’s high speed chase was PC

Defendant’s high speed chase was probable cause. “Defendant’s egregious eluding combined with his throwing an object from his vehicle combine to establish probable cause to search the Defendant’s vehicle under the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.” United … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Okla.: Def’s high speed chase was PC

DE: Judge issuing track and trace order didn’t have to recuse from trial

The fact “the judge who presided over trial had signed a pen register or ‘track and trace’ warrant before [defendant’s] arrest” didn’t require recusal. The state court had already held issuing a search warrant didn’t require recusal either. Fayton v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Neutral and detached magistrate, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on DE: Judge issuing track and trace order didn’t have to recuse from trial

D.Mass.: Late disclosed information provided Franks challenge

How one defendant made a Franks challenge to get a hearing out of late disclosed information. United States v. Gonzalez, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3229 (D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2026)*:

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Late disclosed information provided Franks challenge

CA10: A search incident to arrest isn’t valid when there’s no arrest

A search incident to arrest isn’t valid when there’s no arrest. The law is clearly established, so no qualified immunity. Montgomery v. Cruz, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 161 (10th Cir. Jan. 6, 2026). The defense succeeded in a Franks challenge … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Search incident | Comments Off on CA10: A search incident to arrest isn’t valid when there’s no arrest

S.D.N.Y.: Investigative medical exams implicate 4A

“The Fourth Amendment is implicated when medical examinations are undertaken at the initiative of a state official for an investigatory purpose. See Tenenbaum v. Williams, 193 F.3d 581, 606 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that the Fourth Amendment applies to ‘searches … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Search | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Investigative medical exams implicate 4A

D.N.J.: Someone doesn’t have to be home to execute a SW

It isn’t a proper Fourth Amendment challenge for a warrant not to be executed because no one is home. Rodriguez-Ferreira v. Sweeney, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 560 (D.N.J. Jan. 5, 2026). Defense counsel objected to the search warrant twice on … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d), Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.N.J.: Someone doesn’t have to be home to execute a SW

UT: Inventory policy needs somehow to be in evidence to challenge scope of search

If you’re challenging whether the officer exceeded an inventory policy, it needs to be in evidence. Here there was only testimony about the written policy, and the court could rely on that. Here, the claim was that inventorying a backpack … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Inventory, Scope of search | Comments Off on UT: Inventory policy needs somehow to be in evidence to challenge scope of search

CA5: ME’s alleged false autopsy didn’t state a Franks claim

A medical examiner’s alleged false autopsy report didn’t state a Franks violation because he wasn’t the affiant in any warrant. Dean v. Phatak, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33645 (5th Cir. Dec. 23, 2025):

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA5: ME’s alleged false autopsy didn’t state a Franks claim

CA9: Taking too long to get SW for phone violated clearly established law

The officer here violated clearly established law by taking too long to apply for a warrant to search plaintiff’s cell phone. Plaintiff promptly sought its return, but that was denied because the officer hadn’t got a warrant yet. Langham v. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA9: Taking too long to get SW for phone violated clearly established law

MN: GFE does not apply to after search changes in law that were obviously coming

“The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply to a warrantless vehicle search based solely on the smell of marijuana that occurred before we issued our opinion in State v. Torgerson, 995 N.W.2d 164 (Minn. 2023), which held … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Nexus, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on MN: GFE does not apply to after search changes in law that were obviously coming

D.Minn.: No duty for officer to resolve traffic stop questions before safety concerns resolved

“All of these questions lasted fewer than thirty seconds–they did not ‘measurably extend’ the stop. Johnson, 555 U.S. at 333. Ali cites no law that suggests that officers must address the traffic infraction before they may ask questions related to … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Nexus, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness | Comments Off on D.Minn.: No duty for officer to resolve traffic stop questions before safety concerns resolved

CA6: Reference to water emoji 💦with dual meaning not a Franks violation

“Swanagan did not make an adequate preliminary showing that Budde’s interpretation of the water emoji was intentionally or recklessly false, so the district court did not clearly err in finding the affidavit truthful. Swanagan asserts that he ‘provided dictionary support … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Seizure | Comments Off on CA6: Reference to water emoji 💦with dual meaning not a Franks violation