AZ: Offer of proof would be helpful for Franks claim, and def didn’t make one here

“As noted above, however, some of these alleged omissions and misstatements are simply not supported by the record. And, the omissions that are supported by the record were not material given the strength of the evidence supporting a finding of probable cause. Further, LaPan made no offer of proof to support his allegations that omissions and misstatements were made knowingly, intelligently, or with reckless disregard for the truth. Notably, the affiant detective was present at the hearing on LaPan’s motion to suppress, but LaPan did not call her to testify or otherwise submit ‘a detailed offer of proof and statement of supporting reasons.’” State v. LaPan, 2020 Ariz. App. LEXIS 720 (Aug. 11, 2020).

A warrant for historical CSLI was not a tracking warrant, and it was valid at the time it was issued. Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing judge. Moreover, exclusion hasn’t been recognized for a violation of § 3117(a). Broomfield v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142613 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 10, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Cell site location information, Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.