Category Archives: Franks doctrine

S.D.Ohio: Franks challenge fails: negligent at worst and not material

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails because the misstatements in the affidavit were not material to the finding of probable cause. There were inaccuracies, but they were negligent at best and don’t rise to the level of culpability required for a Franks … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: Franks challenge fails: negligent at worst and not material

E.D.N.C.: Cut-and-paste mistaken sentence fragment into SW affidavit wasn’t enough for Franks challenge

A negligent cut-and-paste error of a sentence fragment from one form affidavit into another wasn’t sufficient to trigger a Franks hearing because it was essentially meaningless over all. United States v. Davis, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29423 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 6, … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on E.D.N.C.: Cut-and-paste mistaken sentence fragment into SW affidavit wasn’t enough for Franks challenge

IL: SW for drugs on person permitted strip search and squat; no touching involved

Officers got a search warrant for a strip search to search defendant’s person for drugs. Making him squat to release a packet of drugs between his “butt cheeks” was within the warrant. People v. Jarvis, 2016 IL App (2d) 141231, … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, Strip search | Comments Off on IL: SW for drugs on person permitted strip search and squat; no touching involved

D.Ore.: Fair inference shown in affidavit that cell phone used in drug trafficking for its SW

The affidavit for the cell phone search warrant provides at least a fair probability of a connection between defendant’s cell phone and his drug activity. “Many, if not most, people who use cell phones with storage capabilities keep important information … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on D.Ore.: Fair inference shown in affidavit that cell phone used in drug trafficking for its SW

E.D.Mich.: “All record” warrant for patient records had a sufficient showing, and it was not overbroad

An “all record” warrant for patient records had a sufficient showing, and it was not overbroad. “The Government is not required to have evidence relating to each and every patient in order to justify the seizure of all patient files.” … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Overbreadth, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: “All record” warrant for patient records had a sufficient showing, and it was not overbroad

W.D.Pa.: Request for a Franks hearing obviated by def’s lack of standing in place searched

To get a Franks hearing, it’s necessary to make an offer of proof, and defendant failed to do so. Defendant does not get a Franks hearing here because he also didn’t show that he’d have standing to make the challenge … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Standing | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Request for a Franks hearing obviated by def’s lack of standing in place searched

DE: Def made a sufficient offer of proof to get a Franks hearing in a DUI blood warrant over omissions in how the FST was done

Delaware refers to affidavit material omissions as a reverse-Franks issue, and here he made a sufficient offer of proof to get a hearing on a search warrant for blood in an DUI case about how the field sobriety test was … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on DE: Def made a sufficient offer of proof to get a Franks hearing in a DUI blood warrant over omissions in how the FST was done

W.D.Pa.: Gun abandoned in flight from police wasn’t the product of an illegal seizure

Abandoned firearm in flight from the police in an allegedly illegal stop isn’t a seizure, and the gun is admissible. United States v. Giles, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200 (W.D.Pa. Jan. 4, 2016).* The CI’s tip was that he’d seen … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Seizure | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Gun abandoned in flight from police wasn’t the product of an illegal seizure

D.Conn.: While def should have presented affidavit of standing, the SW inventory supports his standing

In a corporate office search, defendant should have presented an affidavit to show his standing in the office space. Despite that, however, the government’s search inventory strongly supports his standing because it shows documents taken from what was described as … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof, Computer and cloud searches, Franks doctrine, Overbreadth, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Standing | Comments Off on D.Conn.: While def should have presented affidavit of standing, the SW inventory supports his standing

W.D.Okla.: Rare successful Franks challenge on reckless statements of fact

Defendant made a successful Franks challenge in his drug case. The officer affiant was reckless in overstating facts that were critical to the finding of probable cause and the warrant was suppressed because a Franks violation means no good faith … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception | Comments Off on W.D.Okla.: Rare successful Franks challenge on reckless statements of fact

W.D.N.C.: Protective sweep permits a plain view, but officers could not open closed containers

The protective sweep of defendant’s hotel room permitted looking at a glass jar and box of ammunition that were out in the open. Looking in a glasses case and a duffle bag, however, cannot be justified by the protective sweep … Continue reading →

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, Protective sweep | Comments Off on W.D.N.C.: Protective sweep permits a plain view, but officers could not open closed containers

PA: The best evidence rule does not apply to establishing probable cause

In establishing probable cause, the best evidence rule under Rule 1002 & 1004(a) did not apply to a still photograph of a truck that was taken from a security videotape that was erased and then taped over by a camera … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on PA: The best evidence rule does not apply to establishing probable cause

TX1: On a remand for entry of findings of fact, a new hearing should not have been held

The court of appeals remanded this case for entering findings of fact and conclusions of law so the appeal could be decided. It was not authorized to conduct a further hearing after the record was logged, so it could not … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on TX1: On a remand for entry of findings of fact, a new hearing should not have been held

TX4: Fact that PC was via collective knowledge but not all details how was not Franks violation

It was apparent that the person whose information ended up in the search warrant application was a citizen informant not subject to a more intense review for probable cause. The fact that the affiant didn’t personally talk to the informant … Continue reading →

Posted in Collective knowledge, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on TX4: Fact that PC was via collective knowledge but not all details how was not Franks violation

OR: Passenger’s backpack in car was subject to automobile exception

Passenger’s backpack in the vehicle at the time of the stop was subject to the automobile exception. State v. Furrillo, 274 Ore. App. 612, 2015 Ore. App. LEXIS 1291 (Nov. 4, 2015). Defendant’s admission during a stop on reasonable suspicion … Continue reading →

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Standing | Comments Off on OR: Passenger’s backpack in car was subject to automobile exception

ID: Child sex offense witnesses were discovered prior to likely illegal phone search

Defendant was under investigation for various offenses, including sex crimes. His cell phone was seized when he was arrested for burglary. Minor sex offense witnesses were identified by the allegedly illegal search of the phone, and the court doesn’t suppress … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Independent source, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on ID: Child sex offense witnesses were discovered prior to likely illegal phone search

TN: Motion for return of property doesn’t require a motion to suppress and can come after judgment

A state motion for return of property does not require a motion to suppress. “Additionally, the State’s argument that the trial court lacks jurisdiction because the judgment has become final is misplaced. The Defendant is not seeking to challenge his … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Seizure | Comments Off on TN: Motion for return of property doesn’t require a motion to suppress and can come after judgment

CA11: Overbreadth challenge fails for computers on wireless at a fire station

Defendant was a fireman who was suspected of actively downloading child pornography via a P2P connection at work. Certain representations in the affidavit about the investigators trying to pickup the wireless signal outside the station and who was on duty … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Overbreadth | Comments Off on CA11: Overbreadth challenge fails for computers on wireless at a fire station

WA: Violation of state rule that SW inventory be in presence of another officer requires suppression

Washington rules require that a search warrant inventory be done in the presence of another officer. In this case, the department had only five officers, and the search occurred during the night shift when only one officer was on duty. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Warrant execution | Comments Off on WA: Violation of state rule that SW inventory be in presence of another officer requires suppression

MO: Omission from affidavit that CI was “working off a case” not material–it’s virtually a given

An alleged material omission for Franks purposes was not material because adding it in would essentially be misleading. Telling the issuing magistrate that the CI was “working off a case” isn’t really required under Franks because that’s usually a given … Continue reading →

Posted in Abandonment, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on MO: Omission from affidavit that CI was “working off a case” not material–it’s virtually a given