W.D.N.Y.: Def had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte

Defendant had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte. On the merits his Franks challenge fails: “Even assuming arguendo that any of the above challenged statements could be considered false or misleading, Defendants have put forth no credible evidence that Inspector Homer deliberately or recklessly misled the magistrate judge by misrepresenting the nature of the mailers.” United States v. Engler, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62189 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2026).

“In assessing probable cause for a malicious-prosecution claim, we consider only the information that was presented to the magistrate judge, either orally or in writing. Butler, 85 F.3d at 1113. So we can’t justify a seizure by reference ‘to information in an officer’s investigative file or mind absent a record that he submitted the file to or explained his thought processes to the magistrate judge.’ Id. (quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Accordingly, ‘we consider only (1) the information that was before the magistrate …, minus (2) any material misstatements that [Keeton] might have made, plus (3) any material information that she omitted.’ Id.” And here there was probable cause. Davis v. Distephano, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 8607 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2026).*