When a likely Franks violation comes out at trial, defendant gets to reopen the suppression issue. Here, the officer\u2019s false statement he was present for a third controlled buy satisfied Franks and was excised. Defense counsel showed that it couldn\u2019t have happened. The remainder says two controlled buys, and these were found to be isolated transactions, the last was 20 days before the warrant issued. Because drugs dissipate relatively quickly, the warrant was stale when it issued. Suppression affirmed. Commonwealth v. Mallory, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 689 (Apr. 21, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s claim the judge\u2019s signature on the search warrant was forged is speculative and denied. No CoA. Crowe v. United States, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14373 (6th Cir. May 19, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The continuance of defendant\u2019s stop was justified by the smell of marijuana which was not so improbable that there\u2019s no probable cause. United States v. McIntyre, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 14366 (11th Cir. May 20, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When a likely Franks violation comes out at trial, defendant gets to reopen the suppression issue. Here, the officer\u2019s false statement he was present for a third controlled buy satisfied Franks and was excised. Defense counsel showed that it couldn\u2019t … Continue reading