CA8: Omission of a fact not yet known is not a Franks violation

A detective’s omission of a critical fact that was not yet known is not a Franks violation. “What is undisputed, at least at this point, is that Detective Bowles did not actually know that the fire captain had described the shooter as black. So the question is whether his failure to know that fact—allegedly due to a reckless investigation—can give rise to a clearly established Franks violation. … [¶] The cases say no. As the Fourth Circuit has put it, ‘[a]n officer who does not personally know information cannot intentionally or recklessly omit it.’ ….” Hartman v. Bowles, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 18405 (8th Cir. July 5, 2022)

No Fourth Amendment violation occurred, so defense counsel couldn’t be ineffective. Ellington v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117923 (M.D. Fla. July 5, 2022).*

Differing officers’ testimony from a brief observation doesn’t amount to a Franks violation. It is normal for multiple people to see things differently. United States v. Boyce, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117937 (N.D. Ga. July 5, 2022).*

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

Comments are closed.