D.Ariz.: Whether officer should have believed CI was lying not a Franks issue

Defendant contends that the affiant officer should have known that the CI was lying because of a motive to falsify, but doesn’t say how the officer would have known or did know. That’s insufficient for Franks. Another CI was not present at the time of the offense, but her information could be considered on probable cause. United States v. McReynolds, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99804 (D. Ariz. June 8, 2020).

“Here, assuming that the initial traffic stop was justified by the LPR alert, the State has not met its burden of showing that officers reasonably and diligently sought to confirm or dispel their suspicions as to the purpose for the initial stop, which was premised on a vehicle break-in the day before. In particular, during the suppression hearing, the State failed to establish why it was reasonable for Mullins to be detained for more than 38 minutes before anyone endeavored to review the surveillance video of the prior day’s break-in — which took yet another 20 minutes — and, after that, for another 54 minutes before a decision was made to impound the car and handcuff its occupants.” Mullins v. State, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 334 (June 10, 2020).*

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

Comments are closed.