E.D.N.Y.: Def gets Franks but govt also gets to show justification for protective sweep

There were mistakes in the affidavit that at least gets defendant a Franks hearing. The government, however, will get to provide more information about the justification for a protective sweep which is not confined to the four corners. United States v. Lopez, (GRB), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50786 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2024).

Even if the tracking warrant for defendant’s car had expired and was void, his flight from police when they lit him up provided an independent basis for his stop and arrest with probable cause. Therefore, no ineffective assistance of counsel. United States v. Pickens, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50090 (D. Minn. Mar. 21, 2024).*

Under Roviaro and other cases, defendant doesn’t get discovery of the CIs that led to the search warrant. United States v. Young, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49629 (D.N.M. Mar. 20, 2024).*

Defendant was arrested in the hallway outside his apartment. The entry when he went in to get his keys and shoes was reasonable. Neal El v. Showman, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50545 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 21, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Protective sweep. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.