OH5: Typo on SW date could be overlooked if it can be otherwise figured out

The warrant said without the blanks filled in: “‘Sworn to and subscribed in my presence this ___ day of August 2024. Time ___.’ The warrant also contained a partially pre-filled date line which read ‘Dated this ___ day of August 2024. Time ___.’” It was actually October. If the dates could be figured out, these were typos that could be overlooked. State v. Sadler, 2025-Ohio-4665 (5th Dist. Oct. 9, 2025).

The police here got a warrant for conversations recorded by a PlayStation. State v. Deal, 2025 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 484 (Oct. 10, 2025).*

One doesn’t get discovery to attempt to show a Franks violation. “In this case Defendant seeks additional discovery because he argues that, without it, he otherwise ‘cannot meaningfully challenge the validity of the warrant or the truthfulness of the affidavit.’ … But hope that the recordings might contain material that Defendant can use to challenge the validity or truthfulness of the warrant is not enough to compel disclosure. Sanders, 106 F.4th at 474-75.” United States v. Thomas, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200436 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 9, 2025).*

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

Comments are closed.