CA3: Officers made reasonable effort to determine whether house was multi-use

Defendant lived on the second floor of a house that was not zoned as an apartment building and had no outward appearance there were separate residences. The warrant was for the whole place. The downstairs resident wasn’t the person they were interested in, so they didn’t search his place and went upstairs to search. There was at least a suggestion somewhere it might have been an apartment. “But there is also substantial evidence that the officer did not behave recklessly. Baker did not just refer to the property as an apartment; she also referred to it as a ‘house.’ Prior records identified her address as ‘5142 Harlan Street’ with no indication of an apartment number. … After looking up a public image of the property, Detective Palma did not see ordinary visual cues indicating multiple residences. On this record, the District Court found that Detective Palma took reasonable steps to determine if the house was single- or multi-use.” United States v. Bernard, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 26771 (3d Cir. Sep. 1, 2026).

Defendant’s failure to satisfy the first prong of Franks on the substantial preliminary showing of reckless or intentional falsity, the second prong on materiality doesn’t even have to be considered. United States v. Cicolella, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195893 (D. Ariz. Aug. 31, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.