CA8: When there’s PC for a SW, standing doesn’t even have to be decided

In a tax fraud case, there were six search warrants. Defendants challenge them all. Standing was in dispute, but doesn’t even have to be decided because there clearly is probable cause for all six, despite the claim that one piece of the probable cause was a look through a window seeing incriminating documents. There was still probable cause even without that. A hearing wasn’t even required because the disputed fact, the look through the window, wasn’t material. United States v. Charles, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 906 (8th Cir. Jan. 15, 2025).

“Whether an affidavit’s information is stale is a case-by-case analysis. … Under this analysis, ‘the length of time between the events listed in the affidavit and the application for the warrant’ is salient but not dispositive. Id. At its core, the staleness analysis turns on “‘the inherent nature of the crime”’ and whether an affidavit establishes that officers have a fair probability of finding evidence at the searched property when they search it. … In that vein, the Sixth Circuit has provided four factors to guide staleness inquiries: (1) ‘the character of the crime’; (2) ‘the criminal’; (3) ‘the thing to be seized’; and (4) ‘the place to be searched.’ … These factors are addressed below, demonstrating that the information in Detective Sauve’s affidavit was not stale.” United States v. Schalk, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3808 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 8, 2025).*

This case involves CSLI in a fraud case, and defendant’s Franks challenge fails. On the whole, there was probable cause, even deleting the challenged information. United States v. Falcon, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3825 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2025).*

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

Comments are closed.