ID: Def counsel’s refusal to say officers attempted to mislead the issuing magistrate was fatal to Franks claim

Defendant entered the Pocatello federal courthouse with a backpack. The x-ray scanner revealed a meth pipe, and the local police were called. After police searched the backpack and found meth, they went to defendant’s pickup truck, placed the backpack in the truck and then had a dog alert on the truck. A search warrant was then obtained. The affidavit for the search warrant only said that “personal effects” were put in the pickup truck, not explaining that the backpack was already known to be a container of drugs. Franks was not violated, and the search wasn’t invalid. Defense counsel, put on the spot at the suppression hearing, wouldn’t come out and say that the officers were attempting to mislead the issuing magistrate, and that was fatal to the claim. State v. Mullins, 2018 Ida. LEXIS 221 (Dec. 19, 2018):

Thus, Mullins contends, the drug dog alert was meaningless and misleading. This argument is unavailing. At the evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion, the district court asked Mullins’s counsel, “[d]o you believe that the detectives placed that backpack back in there and purposely did not disclose that to the magistrate when they presented the affidavit of probable cause?” Mullins’s counsel responded, “I can’t say that … I mean, I don’t know. It could have been just, you know, just—not negligence but just, you know, them thinking personal effects and not thinking that they needed to specify.” Thus, Mullins conceded that the police stating “personal effects” in the affidavit, rather than listing each item including the backpack, did not even amount to negligence.

This Court has stated that a negligent misrepresentation is not sufficient to satisfy the rule articulated in Franks. Fisher, 140 Idaho at 370, 93 P.3d at 701. …

There was a strong inference that the affiant was attempting to mislead the magistrate. “Oh, we put a backpack that just had drugs in it into the pickup truck for the dog to alert on.” Defense counsel had a good faith basis to say that.

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

Comments are closed.