CA9: A successful Franks challenge means deletion of offending material and not addition of what was missing

“Welch successfully challenged five statements in the search warrant affidavit, and the district court did not clearly err in rejecting his challenge to several additional statements. Having found that Welch made the necessary showing with respect to the five statements, the district court should have set the false or misleading material aside and then determined whether the remaining content was sufficient to establish probable cause. Franks, 438 U.S. at 156. The government concedes the district court erred by ‘correcting’ the affidavit with accurate information, as opposed to simply excising the false material. However, we conclude this error is harmless because we review the probable cause determination de novo, Dozier, 844 F.2d at 706, and find, excising the false and misleading information from the affidavit, there remained probable cause to issue the warrant.” United States v. Welch, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 22271 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2025).

It is well known that there is no staleness challenge to a search for possession of child pornography. The possibility of an accidental download is a trial defense, not one to the warrant. United States v. Hinrichs, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168550 (D. Neb. Aug. 29, 2025).*

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

Comments are closed.