Two Franks cases

The officer’s failure to include in his affidavit for search warrant the inference that the CI might be under the influence of drugs at the time of the statement wasn’t material. “Similarly, the court concludes that Deputy Harmon’s failure to indicate in the affidavit that law enforcement agreed to assist Mr. Allen with an outstanding warrant in Wabaunsee County or suggested to Mr. Morgan that no charges would be filed against him stemming from his arrest does not constitute a reckless or material omission.” The court gave defendant a Franks hearing. United States v. Bivens, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217892 (D.Kan. Dec. 19, 2019).* Observation: I don’t know why more courts don’t just give Franks hearings and then grill the lawyers about “How is this material? How does this undermine probable cause?” The defendant carries the burden of proof, and it is high because they are seeking to undermine a presumptively valid search warrant. I would think it would ease the court’s burden in rendering a decision and they could rule from the bench and follow with a short opinion.

Defendant seeks to show material omissions or falsity in an affidavit for a state search warrant premised on an unsworn letter from the person who originally talked to the police about who shot her. A Franks motion is a high burden, and the letter and the circumstances of its appearance do not undermine the initial showing of probable cause. It can’t be shown that the officer was aware of any of this when the warrant was obtained. “Regardless of whether the victim’s identification was accurate, Defendant has not shown that Detective Sutphin deliberately provided the issuing judge with false, material information, or that he recklessly did so. Detective Sutphin neither entertained serious doubts about the information the victim provided to Detective MacDonald, nor was there an ‘obvious reason to doubt the truth’ of the victim’s statement to Detective MacDonald.” United States v. Coats, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218026 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2019).*

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

Comments are closed.