D.Nev.: Omission of CI’s felony conviction and motive to provide information justifies Franks hearing

“As further explained below, because the investigating detective’s omission of a tipster’s felony conviction for an offense bearing on his truthfulness in her affidavit supporting her application for a search warrant that led to the discovery of evidence on that tablet, along with the tipster’s statements to the effect he could have possessed Defendant’s electronic devices, and that he wanted to see Defendant arrested, the Court will grant Defendant’s request for a Franks hearing, and defer otherwise ruling on Defendant’s Motion until after that hearing.” United States v. Wright, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206181 (D. Nev. Nov. 27, 2019).

Plaintiffs sued the City of Long Beach for Fourth Amendment and state law claims from revocation of a business license. After the Fourth Amendment claim was settled, the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(2)) over state law claims. Comity dictated they go back to state court. Patel v. City of Long Beach, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35587 (9th Cir. Nov. 27, 2019).*

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

Comments are closed.