N.D.Ala.: No Franks proffer so motion fails

“In this case, the defendant has not attempted to make any preliminary showing that the information contained in the application/affidavit was knowingly or recklessly false. The closest he comes to doing so is the assertion that the application/affidavit avers that ‘pills’ (plural) were found in the car when, in fact, only one Alprazolam pill was found.” Thus, there is no proffer, and the Franks motion fails without a hearing. United States v. De Aza, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13286 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 4, 2019).*

The trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion to suppress. There was objective evidence of traffic offenses justifying the stop. State v. Levine, 2019-Ohio-265, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 264 (4th Dist. Jan. 28, 2019).*

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

Comments are closed.