{"id":4866,"date":"2011-04-14T07:57:21","date_gmt":"2010-11-08T06:37:55","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-11-08T04:43:15","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4866","title":{"rendered":"CA4: <em>Franks<\/em> motion failed after hearing; misstatement was negligent at worst, and PC anyway"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Defendant here actually got to a <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=6436964399753145533&amp;q=franks+v.+delaware&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1002\">Franks<\/a> hearing on inaccurate statements in the affidavit for the search warrant. The USMJ and District Court concluded that the inaccurate statements were the product of the officer being pressed for time to get the search warrant application together, and it was only a misstatement and not intentional or reckless. Moreover, even if the false statement was intentional or reckless, after purging it from the affidavit, probable cause remains, so the motion was properly denied. <a href=\"http:\/\/pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov\/opinion.pdf\/094660.U.pdf\">United States v. Ross<\/a>, 400 Fed. Appx. 730 (4th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).* [My view is: if in doubt, give the defendant a Franks hearing. It doesn&#8217;t take that long, and it makes resolution of the motion and the appeal far easier. And, based on what I see from the cases, probable cause will usually be found on the remainder of the affidavit for search warrant anyway because <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=12877848434623819956&amp;q=Illinois+v.+Gates&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1002\">Gates<\/a> makes the question of probable cause so ephemeral anyway.]<\/p>\n<p>Appellant\u2019s Fourth Amendment claim that DHS workers illegally entered or stayed in her house on a home visit that led to a claim of unfit parenting was not within a final appealable order. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.visupremecourt.org\/wfdata\/frame1492-1118\/File20.pdf\">Bryant v. People<\/a>, 2010 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 66 (January 15, 2010).*<\/p>\n<p>Defendant\u2019s motion to suppress was denied and appealed, so it cannot be relitigated in a \u00a7 2255. United States v. Lopez-Mendoza, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117318 (D. Neb. November 3, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4866\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4866","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4866","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4866"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4866\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4866"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4866"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4866"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}