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 they take into consideration. The officer did not have to actually state the lighting conditions because the affidavit mentioned it was at night and he “believed” he saw a hand to hand drug deal, not actually saw one. State v. Turner, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1033 (October 6, 2015).

Defendant abandoned a tote bag he left behind when he fled from a wrecked motor scooter when fleeing from the police. United States v. Ritchie, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136963 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 14, 2015),* adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136012 (W.D.Mo. Oct. 6, 2015).*

Officers went to a motel room in a minor sex trafficking investigation. The door was ajar 2″ and the knock caused it to inadvertently open farther such that there was a glimpse of the minor females inside. That created exigency for the entry. United States v. Shingles, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136195 (M.D.Fla. October 6, 2015),* R&R 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138285 (M.D.Fla. June 18, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Abandonment, Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.