{"id":8510,"date":"2013-03-21T07:03:29","date_gmt":"2013-03-21T07:03:29","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-03-21T07:03:29","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8510","title":{"rendered":"D.Utah: Cut and paste mistake leads to successful Franks challenge; no probable cause"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Franks challenge succeeds: The affidavit was only three pages long and had a paragraph about hand-to-hand deliveries from the property that admittedly didn\u2019t belong in there and should have been removed when drafting the affidavit. Also, the affidavit went through three levels of review before submission to the issuing court. This was reckless disregard, but still sufficient for Franks. Second, there was an attempt to connect a car to the premises but the officer omitted knowing that the car wasn\u2019t registered to that address, and that was something the issuing judge needed to know. Striking the first reference, and adding in the omitted information leaves tenuous inferences that don\u2019t measure up to probable cause. Finally, the good faith exception does not apply when there is a successful <a href=\"http:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=6436964399753145533&amp;q=franks+v.+delaware&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,4\">Franks<\/a> challenge. United States v. Rodriguez-Ramirez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37789 (D. Utah March 18, 2013).<\/p>\n<p>Evidence hidden in an uncovered boat on adjacent property was not on defendant\u2019s curtilage. n.2: \u201cMr. Scott misses the mark in relying on state trespass law. The question we ask is not whether agents violated state law but rather whether they violated the Fourth Amendment. U.S. v. Walker, 960 F.2d 409, 415 (5th Cir. 1992) (stating that the Fourth Amendment does not exist to \u2018discourage &#8230; violations of  state law\u2019); see also U.S. v. Eastland, 989 F.2d 760, 765-67 (5th Cir. 1993) (refusing to exclude evidence on the basis that agents were trespassing under state law).\u201d <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ca5.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/unpub\/12\/12-60366.0.wpd.pdf\">United States v. Scott<\/a>, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5409 (5th Cir. March 19, 2013).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8510\">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-8510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8510","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=8510"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8510\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}