N.D.Ohio: Paraphrasing and not quoting what a witness said isn’t a Franks violation

“Jones offers a laundry list of complaints about the text of the search warrant affidavit: … [¶] Jones fails to make a ‘substantial preliminary showing that specified portions of the affiant’s averments are deliberately or recklessly false.’ [Officer] Brotherton did not purport to quote what the driver said, and nothing in the law required him to quote the driver’s statements rather than providing a summary of the evidence. Thus, the fact that Brotherton wrote that the suspect who answered the driver’s phone call ‘provided [the driver] with an address of 1418 Buchanan Street, Sandusky, Ohio as the location for him/her to deliver the two kilograms,’ is not false merely because it is not a direct quotation.” United States v. Jones, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178113 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 28, 2020).

Multiple search warrant applications presented at the same time for the same things created qualified immunity for the officer where one was allegedly deficient. Mayfield v. Currie, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 30839 (5th Cir. Sept. 22, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.