E.D.Ky.: Paraphrasing def’s jail calls on hearsay without affiant actually listening to them isn’t a Franks violation

A full forensic search of defendant’s cell phone was authorized by the affidavit which was attached to the search warrant. There were admissions from the defendant on jail calls to others that were reported to the police. The paraphrasing the content of the calls didn’t rise to the level of a Franks violation for not listening to the calls themselves. United States v. Zulawski, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182712 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 26, 2019).*

Defendant’s claim the stop wasn’t valid isn’t supported by the record. The officer testified that there was a traffic offense, and the officer wasn’t required to arrest for one. The deployment of the dog didn’t prolong the stop. At the police station, defendant voluntarily disrobed, they thought to hide the fact he had drugs in his underwear. United States v. Minor, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183054 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 23, 2019).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress somebody else’s cell phones because defendant had no standing. Swatzell v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182479 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 21, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Strip search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.