{"id":27774,"date":"2017-06-25T05:35:37","date_gmt":"2017-06-25T10:35:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=27774"},"modified":"2017-06-25T10:35:45","modified_gmt":"2017-06-25T15:35:45","slug":"d-c-cir-omission-of-robbery-victims-failure-to-id-def-didnt-cut-either-way-in-franks-analysis-pc-still-existed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=27774","title":{"rendered":"D.C.Cir.: Omission of robbery victim&#8217;s failure to ID def didn&#8217;t cut either way in Franks analysis; PC still existed"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Omission of a non-identification of defendant as a robber was not material for Franks. \u201cEven viewing the omitted non-identification as a material omission, probable cause for the search did not rise or fall on the identification of Dorman as the robber; rather the link was between the Dodge Charger and the robbery, Dorman and the Charger, and Dorman and 2317 Chester Street &#8230; Dorman speculates that law enforcement officers \u2018fear[ed]\u2019 inclusion of the sales clerk&#8217;s statement \u2018would jeopardize a probable cause finding.\u2019 &#8230; MPD Detective Scott Brown, who prepared the affidavit, testified that he chose not to include the sales clerk&#8217;s statement in his affidavit because \u2018it didn&#8217;t help the search warrant\u2019 because the sales clerk was uncertain, but it also \u2018didn&#8217;t hurt the search warrant\u2019 because the clerk said Dorman&#8217;s photograph had some resemblance to the robber. &#8230; Dorman&#8217;s rank speculation is far from the \u2018preponderance of the evidence\u2019 required to demonstrate that the officer knowingly or recklessly omitted this statement, much less overcome the district court&#8217;s contrary finding on clear error review.\u201d <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cadc.uscourts.gov\/internet\/opinions.nsf\/AA7BF5286F4B70FB85258148004F7FC7\/$file\/14-3064.pdf\">United States v. Dorman<\/a>, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11159 (D.C. Cir. June 23, 2017).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Omission of a non-identification of defendant as a robber was not material for Franks. \u201cEven viewing the omitted non-identification as a material omission, probable cause for the search did not rise or fall on the identification of Dorman as the &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=27774\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27774","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-franks-doctrine"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27774","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=27774"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27774\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27779,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27774\/revisions\/27779"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=27774"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=27774"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=27774"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}