Defendant had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte. On the merits his Franks challenge fails: \u201cEven assuming arguendo that any of the above challenged statements could be considered false or misleading, Defendants have put forth no credible evidence that Inspector Homer deliberately or recklessly misled the magistrate judge by misrepresenting the nature of the mailers.\u201d United States v. Engler, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62189 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIn assessing probable cause for a malicious-prosecution claim, we consider only the information that was presented to the magistrate judge, either orally or in writing. Butler, 85 F.3d at 1113. So we can’t justify a seizure by reference \u2018to information in an officer’s investigative file or mind absent a record that he submitted the file to or explained his thought processes to the magistrate judge.\u2019 Id. (quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). Accordingly, \u2018we consider only (1) the information that was before the magistrate \u2026, minus (2) any material misstatements that [Keeton] might have made, plus (3) any material information that she omitted.\u2019 Id.\u201d And here there was probable cause. Davis v. Distephano, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 8607 (11th Cir. Mar. 24, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant had standing in his work premises under Mancusi v. Deforte. On the merits his Franks challenge fails: \u201cEven assuming arguendo that any of the above challenged statements could be considered false or misleading, Defendants have put forth no credible … Continue reading