CA3: Merely pleading snitches are unreliable isn’t a Franks offer of proof

“Rodriguez-Colon does not meet this [Franks] requirement. His challenge contains no offer of proof and merely questions the general reliability of confidential sources. For instance, he argued to the District Court that if granted a hearing, “[i]t is anticipated that the informants will tell the defense that they did not buy controlled substances from Mr. Colon from within his residence.” (App. at 40.) Neither Rodriguez-Colon’s speculation, nor his desire to cross-examine the informants, suffices for a Franks hearing or suppression. So the District Court properly denied Rodriguez-Colon’s motion without a hearing.” United States v. Rodriguez-Colon, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 29450 (3d Cir. Sept. 16, 2020).

Defendant’s claim of irreconcilable differences between the affidavit for the search warrant here and a later police report doesn’t show a false or misleading statement. He fails in his Franks burden. United States v. Morell-Oneill, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169171 (D. Mass. Sept. 16, 2020).*

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

Comments are closed.