CA4: That ptf charged with witness intimidation didn’t do it again wasn’t material for Franks

Defendant was charged with witness intimidation for contact with a witness in a criminal case of his. That charge was later dropped, and he sued. Defendants didn’t violate Franks by not mentioning that he never did it again. That’s not material. Brown v. Lott, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12714 (4th Cir. Apr. 28, 2026).

“[T]he four confidential informants and one anonymous tipster are reliable, corroborated by independent evidence and each other, and support finding probable cause. Three informants have a history of providing reliable information. … Further, three informants provided information against their penal interests by describing their personal involvement with Velisek, so those statements are ‘presumptively credible.’” United States v. Velisek, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96136 (D. Minn. May 1, 2026).

The court’s clarifying question asked during the suppression hearing did not violate due process. Courts can ask some questions, and there was no objection at the time. United States v. Neel, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 12681 (11th Cir. May 1, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.