Three on Franks

This Franks argument fails. “Here, there is no indication that any false statement was intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included in the affidavit. Even assuming the information provided by the CI was false or misleading, there is no evidence that Investigator Brisky knew or should have known about any inaccuracy.” “Likewise, there is no evidence which suggests that facts were omitted with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they made, the affidavit misleading. Defendants complain that the affidavit improperly omitted information pertaining to the CI’s criminal history, charges, dismissal of charges, inaccuracy of previous information in other investigations, and payment relationship between the CI and Investigator Brisky.” United States v. Johnson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66066 (D.Neb. Mar. 2, 2022).*

Defendant doesn’t get a CoA on his Franks claim where the dispute was whether the drugs actually seized was heroin or something else. Lombard v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 9523 (6th Cir. Apr. 8, 2022).*

Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was reframed on post-conviction as a Franks issue, and it still fails. The underlying merits of the search aren’t subject to attach that way either. Haase v. State, 2022 Iowa App. LEXIS 320 (Apr. 13, 2022).*

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

Comments are closed.