Category Archives: Franks doctrine

NY3: Where no information anyone else could be inside, no justification for protective sweep after def’s arrest

The police had no information even suggesting that another person was in the premises, and a protective sweep after defendant was arrested was unjustified. People v. Hadlock, 2023 NY Slip Op 03819, 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3839 (3d Dept. … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches, Probable cause, Protective sweep, Strip search | Comments Off on NY3: Where no information anyone else could be inside, no justification for protective sweep after def’s arrest

E.D.La.: Leaving the wrong SW at the scene of the search is not a ground to suppress

Leaving the wrong search warrant at the scene of the search is not a ground to suppress. United States v. Major, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116569 (E.D. La. July 7, 2023). The CI had no track record, but his story … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution, Warrant papers | Comments Off on E.D.La.: Leaving the wrong SW at the scene of the search is not a ground to suppress

OH4: Entry to recover AR-15 was reasonable, even though it was hard to find

Officers responding to a 911 call were told there was an unsecured AR-15 in the house. The entry to retrieve it was reasonable, and Caniglia v. Strom is distinguishable. State v. Pine, 2023-Ohio-2191, 2023 Ohio App. LEXIS 2166 (4th Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Community caretaking function, Consent, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH4: Entry to recover AR-15 was reasonable, even though it was hard to find

TX1: 911 call about a suspected kidnapping led to a stop found valid under Naverette

A 911 call about a suspected kidnapping led to a stop found valid under Naverette. Small v. State, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4610 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) June 29, 2023)* (unpublished) “These events establish probable cause, especially when … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Informant hearsay, Inventory, Probable cause, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on TX1: 911 call about a suspected kidnapping led to a stop found valid under Naverette

N.D.Ind.: “If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony?” Yes.

“If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony? That’s the question facing the Court on Defendant’s motion to suppress. Because the Court has no basis to … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Arrest or entry on arrest, Burden of proof, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: “If six law enforcement officers testify credibly to a story that doesn’t make sense, is the Court bound to accept that testimony?” Yes.

GA: Refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial

Defendant’s refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial. Post-arrest cheek swabs do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they are accepted police booking and jailing procedures, similar to fingerprinting and photographing. … Continue reading

Posted in Admissibility of evidence, DNA, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on GA: Refusal to consent to taking a DNA swab in a rape investigation is admissible at trial

NJ: Smell of mj in the passenger compartment doesn’t justify search of trunk or engine compartment

Where the officer smelled marijuana in the passenger compartment and searched for it finding nothing, a search of the engine compartment and trunk was excessive under the automobile exception. From the syllabus : “Expanding the search to the engine compartment … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Scope of search | Comments Off on NJ: Smell of mj in the passenger compartment doesn’t justify search of trunk or engine compartment

M.D.Ala.: Address alone isn’t enough to confer standing in a mailed package; name on it has to be yours

Defendant wasn’t shown as an addressee of this package, but it was sent to his address. That alone doesn’t give him standing. United States v. Roberts, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107828 (M.D. Ala. May 18, 2023), adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Standing | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: Address alone isn’t enough to confer standing in a mailed package; name on it has to be yours

CA10: 2255 petitioner learned after guilty plea A-C communications were recorded in jail; no relief from plea because no effect shown

2255 petitioner was in pretrial incarceration in the private jail in Leavenworth which notoriously recorded conversations between attorneys and clients. He pled guilty with the standard 2255 waiver. This violation of his rights does not survive the waiver, and he … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Prison and jail searches, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA10: 2255 petitioner learned after guilty plea A-C communications were recorded in jail; no relief from plea because no effect shown

E.D.Cal.: Order to roll down heavily tinted car window is not a search

The order to a motorist to lower his window is not a search, despite the fact the windows were heavily tinted and it made the interior more visible. Two pounds of cannabis on the car seat was probable cause for … Continue reading

Posted in Automobile exception, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Search | Comments Off on E.D.Cal.: Order to roll down heavily tinted car window is not a search

E.D.Mich.: No REP in attorney-client communication in jail 8′ from jailer

Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment complaint that attorney-client communications in jail were overheard does not survive summary judgment. He was a mere eight feet from the jailer who could clearly overhear everything. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances. … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Particularity, Prison and jail searches, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: No REP in attorney-client communication in jail 8′ from jailer

CA9: Joint Cambodian-U.S. search unlawful under Cambodian law not unlawful here; exclusionary rule not applied

Defendant was the subject of a joint raid in Cambodia by local and U.S. officers. The search of defendant’s room was held unlawful under Cambodian law because there was no written consent of the owner, something with no counterpart in … Continue reading

Posted in Conflict of laws, Exclusionary rule, Foreign searches, Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on CA9: Joint Cambodian-U.S. search unlawful under Cambodian law not unlawful here; exclusionary rule not applied

CA10: Govt has to be shown to have property to be ordered to return it under Rule 41(g)

The district court lacked jurisdiction to order return of property under Rule 41(g) because it could not be shown that the government was in possession of the hard drive defendant sought return of. United States v. Toombs, 2023 U.S. App. … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion, Rule 41(g) / Return of property, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on CA10: Govt has to be shown to have property to be ordered to return it under Rule 41(g)

W.D.Mich.: When the question of PC for a warrant is close, there’s still a substantial basis for finding PC and GFE

The question of probable cause to search these packages was a close call. There clearly was at least reasonable suspicion and some of the same facts support probable cause. On the totality, there was at least a substantial basis for … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Probable cause, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on W.D.Mich.: When the question of PC for a warrant is close, there’s still a substantial basis for finding PC and GFE

E.D.N.Y.: Def prevails on a Franks challenge on what he was carrying into his house seen on pole camera

Working from a hearing with a screen shot of a pole camera video, the court concludes that the officer stating defendant was holding a rifle was ultimately with reckless disregard of the truth. Defendant argued he was holding a bouquet … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Pole cameras | Comments Off on E.D.N.Y.: Def prevails on a Franks challenge on what he was carrying into his house seen on pole camera

WA: Driver couldn’t consent to search of passenger’s backpacks

Defendant was in a car that was stopped for a traffic offense. He had warrants and he tried to flee the scene, but didn’t get far. In the car were his backpacks. The driver consented to a search of the … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Custody, Franks doctrine, Scope of search, Voluntariness | Comments Off on WA: Driver couldn’t consent to search of passenger’s backpacks

AZ: Confession obtained after Franks violation should have been suppressed, too

The trial court found a Franks violation from the officer overstating with reckless disregard the facts, and it suppressed the search. Then came defendant’s statements based on the false search warrant affidavit. The trial court did not suppress, but the … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Warrant papers | Comments Off on AZ: Confession obtained after Franks violation should have been suppressed, too

D.Colo.: Bank records have no REP so they can be obtained for restitution purposes

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records, and the government can obtain them to enforce a restitution order. United States v. Osborn, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90076 (D. Colo. May 23, 2023). Defendant doesn’t get a Franks … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Third Party Doctrine | Comments Off on D.Colo.: Bank records have no REP so they can be obtained for restitution purposes

OH7: Officer taking the Fifth at suppression hearing because of other matters doesn’t prove Franks violation

At defendant’s suppression hearing, one of the officers was relieved of duty due to other misconduct, and he took the Fifth. On what remains in the affidavit and on the totality doesn’t otherwise show a Franks violation. State v. Hartung, … Continue reading

Posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH7: Officer taking the Fifth at suppression hearing because of other matters doesn’t prove Franks violation

M.D.Ga.: No right to challenge SW before execution

It isn’t apparent that there’s a right to challenge a search warrant before it is executed. (Rule 17 covers motions to quash subpoenas.) Even if there was, defendant doesn’t carry his burden. United States v. Crumpton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Body searches, Franks doctrine, Motion to suppress, Qualified immunity, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on M.D.Ga.: No right to challenge SW before execution