Category Archives: Franks doctrine

CA6: No QI immunity in an alleged unreasonable opposite sex strip search at jail with alleged unreasonable touching

Plaintiff overcame qualified immunity in her suit against five male jailers who stripped searched her and allegedly touched her genitalia and breasts when she was nude in wrestling her on the floor at book-in. Because of a spit mask they … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA6: No QI immunity in an alleged unreasonable opposite sex strip search at jail with alleged unreasonable touching

TX: After Franks hearing that removed information from the affidavit, there is no heightened standard of PC

After removing false information after a Franks hearing, the standard of review of probable cause remains the same. There is no heightened standard of probable cause after Franks. Hyland v. State, 2019 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 542 (June 5, 2019). … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell site location information, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on TX: After Franks hearing that removed information from the affidavit, there is no heightened standard of PC

E.D.Cal.: Broad discovery in hopes of finding a Franks violation isn’t proper under Rule 16

Defendant doesn’t get broad discovery just to see whether a Franks claim might be able to be made. He needs to be more specific and not just fish around. United States v. Walker, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92699 (E.D. Cal. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Broad discovery in hopes of finding a Franks violation isn’t proper under Rule 16

CA11: 4A claim can’t be brought in a successor 2255

Defendant filed a successor 2255 over the alleged nonexistence of his search warrant, and this doesn’t state ground for a successor petition. “Even if Mallety had presented evidence that the search of the Eden Street apartment was conducted without a … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CA11: 4A claim can’t be brought in a successor 2255

CA6: Summary judgment for Sheriff on a civil Franks claim is reversed because there’s an issue for a jury

Summary judgment for the Sheriff on a civil Franks claim that he could smell marijuana from a really long way away is reversed. Other officers couldn’t smell it until they were right upon it, and he professed in the past … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA6: Summary judgment for Sheriff on a civil Franks claim is reversed because there’s an issue for a jury

LA5: Car in driveway near the street wasn’t on the curtilage

Defendant’s car in the driveway within an hour of the crime enabled the police to look in the windows and see proceeds from the crime inside without violating the curtilage. A search warrant was obtained, and the look was reasonable. … Continue reading →

Posted in Curtilage, Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on LA5: Car in driveway near the street wasn’t on the curtilage

E.D.Mich.: “open the motherfucking door or I’m going to tear it down” showed a lack of consent

Plaintiff overcame defendants’ motion for summary judgment in his Fourth Amendment § 1983 case on consent and exigent circumstances for a warrantless entry. As to consent, “open the motherfucking door or I’m going to tear it down” showed a lack … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: “open the motherfucking door or I’m going to tear it down” showed a lack of consent

NY3: Officer’s subjective intent to search doesn’t matter where there was PC under automobile exception

The officer’s alleged subjective intent to search didn’t matter because there was justification under the automobile exception anyway. People v. HinesPeople v. HinesPeople v. Hines, 2019 NY Slip Op 03853, 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3884 (3d Dept. May 16, … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Pretext, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on NY3: Officer’s subjective intent to search doesn’t matter where there was PC under automobile exception

E.D.Wis.: In camera submissions to rebut Franks claim should have had a hearing

An in camera submission of materials to rebut defendant’s Franks claim required a hearing. Defendant was entitled to see it and then respond. United States v. Lewis, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81937 (E.D. Wis. May 15, 2019), reconsideration denied, 2019 … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on E.D.Wis.: In camera submissions to rebut Franks claim should have had a hearing

D.N.M.: Franks doesn’t apply to grand jury testimony and resulting subpoenas

Franks doesn’t apply to grand jury testimony and resulting subpoenas. United States v. Tolbert, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76939 (D. N.M. May 7, 2019):

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.N.M.: Franks doesn’t apply to grand jury testimony and resulting subpoenas

N.D.Okla.: Merely stating affidavit for SW was “false and misleading” doesn’t state a § 1983 civil Franks claim.

Merely stating that an affidavit for search warrant was “false and misleading” doesn’t state a § 1983 civil Franks claim. Affordable Bail Bonds v. Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75411 (N.D. Okla. May 3, 2019). The respondent … Continue reading →

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Consent, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Okla.: Merely stating affidavit for SW was “false and misleading” doesn’t state a § 1983 civil Franks claim.

AR: Claim of misstatement or incorrect fact in SW affidavit doesn’t state Franks claim without allegation it was reckless or intentional

Merely stating that information in the affidavit for search warrant was incorrect doesn’t preserve a Franks challenge without also alleging that it was recklessly or intentionally made. King v. State, 2019 Ark. 114, 2019 Ark. LEXIS 125 (Apr. 18, 2019). … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on AR: Claim of misstatement or incorrect fact in SW affidavit doesn’t state Franks claim without allegation it was reckless or intentional

D.Mont.: Omission of def’s acquittal in a somewhat related case before the SW was issued was a Franks violation, but adding it in still leads to PC

The affidavit for search warrant omitted that defendant had been tried and acquitted of incest shortly before. Recasting the affidavit to include that fact, however, still leads to probable cause. “The Court determines that probable cause remains even after the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on D.Mont.: Omission of def’s acquittal in a somewhat related case before the SW was issued was a Franks violation, but adding it in still leads to PC

D.Me.: Absent room renter could consent to search of motel room def was alone in under Randolph

Defendant was the sole occupant of his hotel room, and the absent renter consented to the search. That consent was binding on defendant under Randolph. It wasn’t ineffective assistance of counsel for defense counsel to fail to argue for an … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on D.Me.: Absent room renter could consent to search of motel room def was alone in under Randolph

D.P.R.: Factual assertion in SW affidavit based on inference was reasonable and not false

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails. The officer’s assertion of fact was a reasonable inference based on what he saw and wasn’t false. United States v. Cruz-Arroyo, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47172 (D. P.R. Mar. 19, 2019).* Defendant’s Franks challenge fails for … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on D.P.R.: Factual assertion in SW affidavit based on inference was reasonable and not false

D.Nev.: The fact the officers claimed to smell marijuana but didn’t find any doesn’t mean they were lying

It was testified that the car smelled like burnt marijuana. The fact none was found doesn’t indicate that officers were lying. United States v. Davila, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42805 (D. Nev. Jan. 31, 2019),* adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipatory warrant, Franks doctrine, Plain view, feel, smell | Comments Off on D.Nev.: The fact the officers claimed to smell marijuana but didn’t find any doesn’t mean they were lying

CA7: SW not required by Riley and Carpenter for cell phone and computer searches at border

The Seventh Circuit finds that the border search exception was not affected by Riley and Carpenter such that a search warrant is required for search of electronics at the border. United States v. Wanjiku, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8154 (7th … Continue reading →

Posted in Border search, Cell phones, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA7: SW not required by Riley and Carpenter for cell phone and computer searches at border

Cal. App. Div.: Driver being told he had to submit to a BAC test wasn’t consent at all

The officer here told defendant that he had to submit to a blood test, so there was no voluntary consent. “Here, the officer violated section 655.1 by telling defendant he had to choose instead of requesting that he submit to … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Drug or alcohol testing, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on Cal. App. Div.: Driver being told he had to submit to a BAC test wasn’t consent at all

N.D.N.Y.: Even if def accused drug dealer’s alleged cover business was omitted from affidavit, there still was PC

The officers lack of complete detail to fully explain defendant’s version that he might have had a lawful explanation for what he was doing doesn’t rise to the high bar of a Franks violation. In addition, it’s not uncommon for … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.N.Y.: Even if def accused drug dealer’s alleged cover business was omitted from affidavit, there still was PC

W.D.Mo.: Def had standing in a truck he was loaned

Defendant has standing in his daughter’s truck because he showed that she let him use it. The officer’s mistake of law concerning the expiration date of the vehicle’s license was reasonable. “Month of expiration” under Missouri law isn’t obvious. United … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.Mo.: Def had standing in a truck he was loaned