Omissions were shown but they weren’t material under Franks

Defendant showed that omissions were made from the officer’s affidavit for the search warrant, but defendant failed to show that they were material under Franks. United States v. Jebory, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11723 (D. Minn. February 14, 2008):

Second, the Court comments on Agent Robinson’s reference to Ismail as a first-time citizen informant and the Agent’s omission of Ismail’s criminal background, previous drug dealings, and payment arrangement. Agent Robinson referenced Ismail as a first-time citizen informant after observing Ismail deliver drugs during two controlled buys. In addition, Agent Robinson failed to include certain details regarding Ismail’s criminal record, previous drug dealings, and payment arrangement. The characterization of Ismail as a first-time informant was misleading and the Court rejects Agent Robinson’s contention that he so described Ismail for Ismail’s protection. In addition, the Court is troubled by the omission of Ismail’s criminal record, previous drug dealings, and payment arrangement. However, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the misleading representation and omissions were not clearly critical to the finding of probable cause and therefore did not rise to the level of a Franks violation.

Three month old information was not stale in child porn case involving downloading of 247 images. United States v. Tanner, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11641 (W.D. Ky. February 14, 2008).*

Defendant’s wife had a friend remove the hard drive from her husband’s computer after he told her he was gay and moving out and in with a man. She turned it over to the police when it was found to have child porn, and it was found by a private search. United States v. Crewe, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11654 (E.D. Wis. February 4, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.