MA: When a likely Franks violation comes out at trial, def gets to reopen the suppression issue

When a likely Franks violation comes out at trial, defendant gets to reopen the suppression issue. Here, the officer’s false statement he was present for a third controlled buy satisfied Franks and was excised. Defense counsel showed that it couldn’t have happened. The remainder says two controlled buys, and these were found to be isolated transactions, the last was 20 days before the warrant issued. Because drugs dissipate relatively quickly, the warrant was stale when it issued. Suppression affirmed. Commonwealth v. Mallory, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 689 (Apr. 21, 2026).

Defendant’s claim the judge’s signature on the search warrant was forged is speculative and denied. No CoA. Crowe v. United States, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14373 (6th Cir. May 19, 2026).*

The continuance of defendant’s stop was justified by the smell of marijuana which was not so improbable that there’s no probable cause. United States v. McIntyre, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14366 (11th Cir. May 20, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Neutral and detached magistrate, Plain view, feel, smell. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.