Defendant sought additional discovery to be able to pursue a Franks challenge, and it was denied, and that was error. “In sum, because defendant was not able to investigate anything in the detective’s affidavit by obtaining routine discovery that should have been automatically provided to him, defendant did not have a fair opportunity to pursue his motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search authorized by the warrant or to obtain a Franks hearing. Therefore, we conclude that the court mistakenly exercised its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion to compel discovery.” State v. Desir, 2019 N.J. Super. LEXIS 148 (Oct. 8, 2019).
The pro se plaintiff felt aggrieved because two NOLA police officers made “anti-Trump” and “pro-black” comments in a Waffle House that he overheard. Then he says a month later they were there again and touching their Taser and sidearm. He doesn’t state a Fourth Amendment or § 1983 claim. Gressett v. New Orleans City, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30126 (5th Cir. Oct. 7, 2019).*