Category Archives: Franks doctrine

C.D.Cal.: Affidavit’s failure to mention state court suppressed the same search was material and reckless under Franks

The affiant’s failure to include that a state court suppressed the underlying search was material to probable cause in federal court. The state search was based on the probation search exception, but the target was off probation. “This omission created … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Probable cause | Comments Off on C.D.Cal.: Affidavit’s failure to mention state court suppressed the same search was material and reckless under Franks

CA3: Def’s being a manager of premises gave RS as to him under PA law

Defendant’s status as the manager of a lounge gave reasonable suspicion to detain him under Pennsylvania law for what was going on inside. United States v. Burgess, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 7359 (3d Cir. Mar. 31, 2025). Plaintiff’s civil Franks … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA3: Def’s being a manager of premises gave RS as to him under PA law

W.D.Va.: No REP in non-legal jail mail from being scanned for tablet viewing

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in non-legal mail in jail. Here, mail was scanned and made into a pdf for viewing on a tablet. Cecil v. Keller, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56313 (W.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2025).* A … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Mail and packages, Prison and jail searches, Probable cause | Comments Off on W.D.Va.: No REP in non-legal jail mail from being scanned for tablet viewing

E.D.Pa.: Overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard

An overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard. United States v. Halley, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53342 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2025). Even if there was a false statement in the affidavit for search warrant, it … Continue reading →

Posted in Attenuation, Franks doctrine, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on E.D.Pa.: Overnight guest had standing in the house but not the backyard

CA1: Omission of the CI’s criminal history was only negligent for Franks purposes

The affiant’s omission of the CI’s criminal history was only negligent and didn’t undermine the probable cause showing. United States v. Francis, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 6795 (1st Cir. Mar. 24, 2025). Some of evidence here was discovered before any … Continue reading →

Posted in Attenuation, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on CA1: Omission of the CI’s criminal history was only negligent for Franks purposes

CA9: 71-day delay for iPhone SW was reasonable where software update was involved

71-day delay in getting search warrant to access defendant’s cell phone was reasonable where the delay was attributed to waiting for a software update for their device because the iPhone was a newer model. United States v. Powell, 2025 U.S. … Continue reading →

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Plain view, feel, smell, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA9: 71-day delay for iPhone SW was reasonable where software update was involved

PA: PO search of parolee’s visitor required RS which was lacking

Under a parole search of one Scott in his home, the PO had authority to frisk the visitor defendant if he had safety concerns or reasonable suspicion, and here they did not. Commonwealth v. Gibson, 2025 PA Super 65, 2025 … Continue reading →

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on PA: PO search of parolee’s visitor required RS which was lacking

CA10: A Franks violation can’t be based on information that had not been discovered yet

The affidavit showed probable cause. And, “Detective Ames did not knowingly or recklessly omit exculpatory information from the affidavit because she was not aware of any such information when she prepared the affidavit.” Weidner v. McHale, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of proof, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA10: A Franks violation can’t be based on information that had not been discovered yet

CA2: 50 days of pole camera surveillance outside a business wasn’t unreasonable search

A pole camera outside defendant’s business for 50 days was not an unreasonable search. United States v. Harry, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5329 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2025). Defendant was improperly denied a hearing. The codefendant had a suppression hearing … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Pole cameras, Standing | Comments Off on CA2: 50 days of pole camera surveillance outside a business wasn’t unreasonable search

E.D.Cal.: 27-page SW affidavit was sufficient and didn’t have to include every detail

The affidavit for warrant was 27 pages long and it omitted a lot of detail, but that’s not enough to show a Franks violation. Every detail doesn’t have to be included, and the omissions here don’t undermine the probable cause … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: 27-page SW affidavit was sufficient and didn’t have to include every detail

CA6: Franks argument subsumed within PC argument is treated as waived

Defendant’s Franks argument was skeletal and subsumed within his lack of probable cause argument. It is treated as waived. “And we consider arguments forfeited where ‘[i]ssues [are] adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation.’” … Continue reading →

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine, Standing, Waiver | Comments Off on CA6: Franks argument subsumed within PC argument is treated as waived

NY1: SW misdescription of place to be searched not adequately resolved below; remanded

Defendant’s motion to suppress based on an apparent misdescription of the place to be searched wasn’t resolved below, so the case is remanded for further development. People v. Trulove, 2025 NY Slip Op 01178, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1170 … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on NY1: SW misdescription of place to be searched not adequately resolved below; remanded

CA5: Officer’s responding to “open structure call” and entering was reasonable as community caretaking function

“When Dean responded to the ‘open structure call’ he was performing a community caretaking function. Community caretaking functions are ‘totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.’ … Here, even … Continue reading →

Posted in Community caretaking function, Franks doctrine, Inventory, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d) | Comments Off on CA5: Officer’s responding to “open structure call” and entering was reasonable as community caretaking function

CA4: Withheld discovery information about CIs in SW affidavit justified setting aside guilty plea

Defendant’s guilty plea is set aside as a due process as a result of the government withholding information about a second CI in the search warrant papers where the first couldn’t identify him. When the government made a later 775-page … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA4: Withheld discovery information about CIs in SW affidavit justified setting aside guilty plea

legalai.com: Evidence Excluded In Murder Case for Failure to Disclose AI Use [from apparent Franks violation]

legalai.com: Evidence Excluded In Murder Case for Failure to Disclose AI Use by Dean Taylor (Feb 17, 2025). The affidavit for warrant obscured that facial recognition powered by AI was used to identify the accused, stating in the motion to … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine | Comments Off on legalai.com: Evidence Excluded In Murder Case for Failure to Disclose AI Use [from apparent Franks violation]

S.D.N.Y.: Govt declines to use challenged evidence so it’s moot; def can reassert if need be

The government says it doesn’t intend to use challenged evidence, so the motion to suppress is moot. If the government changes its mind, defendant can reassert it. United States v. Combs, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25641 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2025).* … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Mootness, Waiver | Comments Off on S.D.N.Y.: Govt declines to use challenged evidence so it’s moot; def can reassert if need be

OR: Officer’s use of a flashlight to facilitate a plan view at night was reasonable

The officer’s use of a flashlight to facilitate a plan view at night was reasonable. State v. Starr, 337 Or. App. 682 (Feb. 12, 2025).* There was probable cause to believe blood on the cell phone was defendant’s justifying the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Plain view, feel, smell, Probable cause | Comments Off on OR: Officer’s use of a flashlight to facilitate a plan view at night was reasonable

CA8: False statement van was “secured” was based on secondhand information and was neither material or reckless

The officer’s statement that defendant’s van was “secured” was not sufficient false and misleading to even be reckless. The officer was passing on information from other officers about the van, but the windows were missing and it was accessible. United … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA8: False statement van was “secured” was based on secondhand information and was neither material or reckless

OH5: RS permits putting def into a patrol car to maintain the status quo

Officers had reasonable suspicion to initiate a brief investigative stop of defendant based on the totality of the circumstances, including the citizen’s tip, the late hour, the location, and the defendant’s suspicious behavior upon seeing them. Placing him in the … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH5: RS permits putting def into a patrol car to maintain the status quo

CA11: Potential new Franks violation not enough for third successor habeas

This is petitioner’s third successor habeas attempt. This one claims new information might make a Franks violation. Except that it doesn’t qualify for permission to proceed as a successor. In re Obeginski, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2806 (11th Cir. Feb. … Continue reading →

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search | Comments Off on CA11: Potential new Franks violation not enough for third successor habeas