CA3: Standard of review of a Franks violation does not have to be decided because defendant loses under either

The Third Circuit does not have to decide the standard of appellate review of denial of a Franks hearing. Defendant here would lose under either standard. United States v. Heilman, 377 Fed. Appx. 157 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished)*:

We also need not decide today what standard of review to employ when reviewing the District Court’s refusal to permit a Franks hearing. Normally, we review the denial of a motion for suppression for clear error as to the underlying facts and exercise plenary review as to its legality. See United States v. Agnew, 407 F.3d 193, 196 (3d Cir. 2005). We have not stated a precise standard of review where a District Court denied a Franks hearing, and other circuits are split on this matter. See United States v. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295, 304 (6th Cir. 2002). Three circuits employ clear-error review, United States v. Skinner, 972 F.2d 171, 177 (7th Cir. 1992), United States v. Hadfield, 918 F.2d 987, 992 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. One Parcel of Property, 897 F.2d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 1990); two circuits review de novo, United States v. Hornick, 964 F.2d 899, 904 (9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Mueller, 902 F.2d 336, 341 (5th Cir. 1990); and one circuit reviews for abuse of discretion, United States v. Fairchild, 122 F.3d 605, 610 (8th Cir. 1997). Because the most demanding standard articulated by any court is de novo, and because the de novo standard of review is satisfied here, we need not determine the applicable standard today.

Even when reviewing the District Court’s refusal to hold a Franks hearing de novo, it is clear the court did not err because neither Napoli nor Johnson made the requisite preliminary showing. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. …

Defendant was stopped more than 12″ from the curb with somebody leaning through the passenger window talking to him. That gave a basis for a stop. When the officer approached defendant he could smell alcohol and saw open containers in the vehicle. He ordered the defendant out of the vehicle and saw a bulge, and defendant would not keep his hands out of his pockets. This justified a patdown. United States v. Ferrell, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39605 (W.D. Wis. April 6, 2010), adopted 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39602 (W.D. Wis. April 22, 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.