N.D.Ohio: Under Franks, materiality of the omitted info to PC is required, not just that it was omitted

“Hill argues Agent Fulmer’s affidavit omitted information previously obtained during the investigation and which was contained in an affidavit submitted with a wiretap application filed in the Eastern District of Michigan in December 2016. Hill, however, does not explain how the omitted information, even if I were to assume it is material, would have had any impact on Judge Zouhary’s probable cause finding. Hill does not contend the information is exculpatory — in fact, the omitted information was cumulative and would have supported the probable-cause determination. I conclude Hill is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.” United States v. Hill, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118075 (N.D. Ohio July 16, 2018).*

“Here, Special Agent Sweeney’s affidavit in support of the warrant [for defendant’s cell phone] goes well beyond what is required to demonstrate probable cause.” And the details are …. United States v. Carton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117242 (S.D. N.Y. July 13, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.