D.N.J.: That officers could have investigated more isn’t a Franks violation

“None of these allegations is sufficient to warrant a Franks hearing either. At bottom, Rodriguez is merely criticizing the tactics employed by the police during their investigation. See United States v. Swanson, 210 F.3d 788, 791 (7th Cir. 2000) (explaining that the defendant’s allegation that ‘the investigators should have done more work’ does not meet ‘the high standard for convening a Franks hearing’). His criticisms do not call into question the truth of the facts contained in the affidavit of probable cause.” United States v. Rodriguez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65492 (D.N.J. Apr. 8, 2022).*

The government had information of a download of child pornography from 17 months earlier, but it was not stale because of other information in the affidavit that showed defendant was a likely collector. United States v. Stuart, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65126 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2022).*

Defendant focuses on five week old information as showing staleness, but there was other information after that (two intercepted conversations) that suffice to obviate staleness. United States v. Parrish, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65114 (S.D.Ga. Apr. 7, 2022).*

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

Comments are closed.