The affidavit for warrant was 27 pages long and it omitted a lot of detail, but that’s not enough to show a Franks violation. Every detail doesn’t have to be included, and the omissions here don’t undermine the probable cause or aren’t material. “[T]he Fourth Amendment does not require an ‘encyclopedic’ explanation of probable cause.” United States v. Loloee, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37758 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2025)*:
Although the government is correct that the Fourth Amendment does not require an “encyclopedic” explanation of probable cause, an affiant does have “a duty to provide, in good faith, all relevant information to the magistrate [judge],” even if that information is voluminous. Perkins, 850 F.3d at 1116 (citing United States v. Hill, 459 F.3d 966, 971 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006)). The government’s concerns about “overwhelming” or “confusing” a duly appointed magistrate judge, selected based on merit, are misplaced if not condescending or patronizing. Its position runs the risk of usurping “the magistrate judge’s duty to conduct an independent evaluation of probable cause.” United States v. Wright, 431 F. Supp. 3d 1175, 1183 (D. Nev. 2020) (quoting Perkins, 850 F.3d at 1118), aff’d, No. 20-10303, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 373, 2022 WL 67341 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2022) (internal citations omitted). Affiants must not allow efforts at purported clarity or streamlining to “mislead a magistrate [judge] ‘by reporting less than the total story.'” Perkins, 850 F.3d at 1117-18 (quoting Stanert, 762 F.2d at 781) (alterations omitted).
Fairly assessed, Loloee’s evidence of recklessness is not as strong as that in other cases, and it is far from conclusive, but it suffices to make out the necessary “substantial showing” about the Special Agent’s state of mind. The government does not dispute the Special Agent knew about the omitted information based on his involvement in the investigation. Nor does the government dispute at least some of the omitted information could potentially have raised doubts about its sources’ and witnesses’ motives, the reliability of their statements or their credibility in general. Other courts have found similar information can support a defendant’s claim of recklessness or intentional omissions. See, e.g., United States v. Sheikh, 481 F. Supp. 3d 1052, 1055 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (discussing government’s provision of food, housing, temporary status and possibly permanent residency to sources who assisted investigation and finding omission of such information reckless). For these reasons, Loloee has met his preliminary burden of showing at least recklessness under the first part of the Franks test.
by John Wesley Hall Criminal Defense Lawyer and Search and seizure law consultant Little Rock, Arkansas Contact: forhall @ aol.com / The Book www.johnwesleyhall.com
"If it was easy, everybody would be doing it. It isn't, and they don't." —Me
"Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well." –Josh Billings (pseudonym of Henry Wheeler Shaw), Josh Billings on Ice, and Other Things (1868) (erroneously attributed to Robert Louis Stevenson, among others)
“I am still learning.” —Domenico Giuntalodi (but misattributed to Michelangelo Buonarroti (common phrase throughout 1500's)).
"Love work; hate mastery over others; and avoid intimacy with the government."
—Shemaya, in the Thalmud
"It is a pleasant world we live in, sir, a very pleasant world. There are bad people in it, Mr. Richard, but if there were no bad people, there would be no good lawyers."
—Charles Dickens, “The Old Curiosity Shop ... With a Frontispiece. From a Painting by Geo. Cattermole, Etc.” 255 (1848)
"A system of law that not only makes certain conduct criminal, but also lays down rules for the conduct of the authorities, often becomes complex in its application to individual cases, and will from time to time produce imperfect results, especially if one's attention is confined to the particular case at bar. Some criminals do go free because of the necessity of keeping government and its servants in their place. That is one of the costs of having and enforcing a Bill of Rights. This country is built on the assumption that the cost is worth paying, and that in the long run we are all both freer and safer if the Constitution is strictly enforced."
—Williams
v. Nix, 700 F. 2d 1164, 1173 (8th Cir. 1983) (Richard Sheppard Arnold,
J.), rev'd Nix v. Williams, 467 US. 431 (1984).
"The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws,
or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence." —Mapp
v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961).
"Any costs the exclusionary rule are costs imposed directly by the Fourth Amendment."
—Yale Kamisar, 86 Mich.L.Rev. 1, 36 n. 151 (1987).
"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that
bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the
police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater
than it is today."
— Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 39 (1968) (Douglas, J., dissenting).
"The great end, for which men entered into society, was to secure their
property."
—Entick
v. Carrington, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029, 1066, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765)
"It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have
frequently been forged in controversies involving not very nice people. And
so, while we are concerned here with a shabby defrauder, we must deal with his
case in the context of what are really the great themes expressed by the Fourth
Amendment."
—United
States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)
"The course of true law pertaining to searches and seizures, as enunciated
here, has not–to put it mildly–run smooth."
—Chapman
v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 618 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
"A search is a search, even if it happens to disclose nothing but the
bottom of a turntable."
—Arizona
v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 325 (1987)
"For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly
exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth
Amendment protection. ... But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in
an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."
—Katz
v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967)
“Experience should teach us to be most on guard to
protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born
to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded
rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
—United
States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1925) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)
“Liberty—the freedom from unwarranted
intrusion by government—is as easily lost through insistent nibbles by
government officials who seek to do their jobs too well as by those whose purpose
it is to oppress; the piranha can be as deadly as the shark.”
—United
States v. $124,570, 873 F.2d 1240, 1246 (9th Cir. 1989)
"You can't always get what you want / But if you try sometimes / You just might find / You get what you need." —Mick Jagger & Keith Richards, Let it Bleed (album, 1969)
"In Germany, they first came for the communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for
the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came
for me–and by that time there was nobody left to speak up."
—Martin Niemöller (1945) [he served seven years in a concentration
camp]
“You know, most men would get discouraged by now. Fortunately for you, I am not most men!” ---Pepé Le Pew
"The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." —Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13-14 (1948)
