CA10: Use of flashlight to aid a drone is still plain view

Officers were waiting for a search warrant to enter premises to look for a person. With consent of a neighbor, an officer climbed higher to use a flashlight to aid an overhead drone at night, seeing a gun on the roof. That view was permissible. United States v. Coronado, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10074 (10th Cir. Apr. 8, 2026) (§ 13.14 n.2).

“Defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing because he has not made the threshold substantial preliminary showing for two reasons. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. First, he did not make an offer of proof establishing that SA Pacini misstated or omitted information from the Affidavit knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. See id. …. Rather, Defendant asserts that the FBI contradicted itself by stating that they did not conduct trash pulls or establish surveillance because he lived in a multi-unit apartment building or they did not know where he lived, but later stated that they used geolocation information to gather information about where he lived. As the Government noted, these statements are not inconsistent because SA Pacini explained that the FBI used geolocation data to identify residences “utilized by” Defendant and others. … Second, even if the alleged contradictory information is excised, the Affidavit still contains ample content to support a finding of probable cause as discussed herein.” United States v. Yarbough, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76063 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 8, 2026).*

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

Comments are closed.