Defendants showed enough doubt about affidavit to get a Franks hearing

The defendant had no objective reasonable expectation of privacy in premises where he would not have been allowed to stay if he had asked. United States v. Dent, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83385 (D. Me. September 26, 2008)*:

In this case, the defendant never asked the homeowners’ permission to store belongings in their house; would not have been granted such permission had he asked; and, in my view, was well aware that such permission would not be forthcoming. To the extent that Jaime had become aware that the defendant had made use of her residence for purposes other than casual daytime visitation, for example, staying overnight or using 81 Marble as his mailing address, she had expressly forbidden him to do so. He could not have harbored any reasonable belief that it was permissible for him to store his belongings there. Further, as Jaime testified, 81 Marble was a home in which every resident had equal access to all rooms within. In leaving his bag unattended in Meagan’s first-floor bedroom, without the knowledge or permission of the homeowners, whom he knew would have denied such permission, the defendant took the risk that the homeowners would invade the privacy of his closed but unlocked bag. He thereby forfeited whatever expectation of privacy he otherwise might have harbored in its contents.

Defendant showed sufficient error in the search warrant affidavit to get a Franks hearing. United States v. Billian, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83401 (N.D. Ind. October 17, 2008):

In this case, the defendants have raised issues the significance of which ultimately can only be resolved in an evidentiary hearing. Whether some or all of the alleged misrepresentations the defendants claim were present in Detective Smith’s affidavit were deliberate, or included with reckless disregard as to their truth, or whether, as the government claims, any such errors were simply harmless mistakes and immaterial to a finding of probable cause, can only be determined following an evidentiary hearing that will enable the court to hear and assess the testimony of relevant witnesses, including but perhaps not limited to Detective Smith, who drafted and submitted the affidavit to the state court magistrate. Therefore, the court concludes that any ruling on the defendants’ motion to suppress will be deferred pending further proceedings and that their motion for an evidentiary hearing should be granted.