M.D.La.: Use of word “clear” to describe certain facts wasn’t a Franks violation; removing it still leaves PC anyway

Defendant challenges the use of the word “clear” to describe the facts, which is supported by the facts. “[E]ven if the Court finds that the challenged statement was false and orders it stricken from the affidavit, the Court finds that other information in the supporting affidavit provided sufficient probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant.” United States v. Clark, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128937 (M.D. La. Aug. 2, 2019).

Officers get qualified immunity for an entry based on exigency of alleged child abuse and a warrant for one of the occupants. When they arrived, despite the exigency, they didn’t enter right away until after the occupants refused to show the kids. Fineout v. Kostanko, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23167 (6th Cir. Aug. 2, 2019).

This entry was posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.