Defendant succeeds in getting hearing on a Franks challenge, making the \u201csubstantial preliminary showing.\u201d United States v. Ardis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106369 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2024)*:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the Court does find that defendant has made a substantial preliminary showing that the following omissions warrant a Franks evidentiary hearing. The affidavit does not include the fact that surveillance footage contradicts several aspects of Hopkins’s story, specifically her assertions that she fell asleep in Landry’s tent while watching the Malcolm X movie and didn’t wake until 2am, and that she went back to her tent and slept until the police detained her shortly after being dropped off at Mother Brown’s. Witness Bradford’s statements also contradict her story because Bradford indicates he last saw Landry at 2am on August 22, 2022 but last saw Hopkins between 11am and 12pm on August 21, 2022. The Court also finds that a substantial preliminary showing that the omission of crime scene investigation information was misleading, including that there were no ShotSpotter activations or reports of shots fired in the relevant time frame, given the amount of time investigators spent inspecting Landry’s tent and the fact that this investigation tends to cast doubt on aspects of Hopkins’s story. These omissions could be misleading, particularly given that Hopkins’s story is the only thing connecting the silver SUV in the surveillance footage to a shooting and all these details cast doubt on the veracity of her story. The government does not address the inconsistencies between the surveillance footage and Hopkins’s story in its opposition. See Dkt. No. 56 at 22-30.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The government contends that there is no showing that any misleading omissions were made intentionally or recklessly. Dkt. No. 56 at 32-33. The Court disagrees; the alleged omissions were within the officer’s personal knowledge, which is the most “commonsense evidence” that an officer acted with at least a reckless disregard for the truth. See Chism, 661 F.3d at 388. Furthermore, the government included a declaration from Inspector Lee along with its opposition that does not address some of the above-identified omissions or addresses them in a conclusory fashion. The government also argues in a conclusory manner that even if the Court were to find the first Franks prong met, Ardis has not shown that any of the allegedly misleading statements were necessary to find probable cause. Dkt. No. 56 at 33. The Court disagrees. Hopkins’s story is the only thing connecting the silver SUV “D” was driving to a shooting, so evidence that throws into doubt aspects of her story is highly relevant and should have been considered in the probable cause determinations, which already relied on thin evidence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant succeeds in getting hearing on a Franks challenge, making the \u201csubstantial preliminary showing.\u201d United States v. Ardis, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106369 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2024)*: However, the Court does find that defendant has made a substantial preliminary … Continue reading