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, 2016), adopted 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29421 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 8, 2016):

… Jackson’s statement appears credible for two reasons. First, the inadvertent inclusion of this language is plausible because it appears as a sentence fragment after a sentence that would otherwise be the conclusion of the affidavit. Second, there is no other information in the remainder of the affidavit that would indicate that law enforcement would have had the ability to determine whether there was an odor of marijuana in the house or drug paraphernalia readily visible.

Errors based upon “negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient” to establish an entitlement to a Franks hearing. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. Additionally, in light of the court’s ruling on the statements in the affidavit regarding the brown paper bag, there would be sufficient information in the affidavit to establish probable cause for a search warrant even if this statement were to be removed from the affidavits. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that Defendants’ motion for a Franks hearing be denied.

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.