Category Archives: Franks doctrine

W.D.Pa.: Losing suppression motion then pleading nolo was collateral estoppel in later civil case

Plaintiff raised a search issue in her underlying criminal case and lost. Later, she pled nolo and thus could not appeal. That’s final enough for collateral estoppel to apply in her § 1983 case. Harr v. Washington Area Humane Soc’y, … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Losing suppression motion then pleading nolo was collateral estoppel in later civil case

CA4: A Franks challenge requires an offer of proof, and it cannot be conclusory

A Franks challenge requires an offer of proof, and it cannot be conclusory. United States v. Shaw, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 22585 (4th Cir. Sep. 5, 2024):

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA4: A Franks challenge requires an offer of proof, and it cannot be conclusory

N.D.Ind.: Slightly different trial testimony doesn’t make a Franks violation; it’s what the officer knew at the time

Slightly different trial testimony here didn’t support a Franks challenge. The officer swore to what he knew when he applied for the warrant, and that wasn’t false. United States v. Bates, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156420 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 30, … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause | Comments Off on N.D.Ind.: Slightly different trial testimony doesn’t make a Franks violation; it’s what the officer knew at the time

CA4: Def’s failure to explain Franks claim means no abuse of discretion in denying motion to suppress

“[W]e agree with the district court that nothing in either motion justified a Franks hearing because, at bottom, Bordeaux did not explain the basis for his multiple assertions of falsity or make a sufficient showing that the officers acting knowingly … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on CA4: Def’s failure to explain Franks claim means no abuse of discretion in denying motion to suppress

MA: There was exigency and more for a welfare check entry under Caniglia

A welfare check at defendant’s father’s house led to police entering without a warrant. “[O]fficers had an objectively reasonable basis to believe that the victim was in his house and in need of emergency assistance. Although the police may no … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on MA: There was exigency and more for a welfare check entry under Caniglia

OH8: Citizen informant’s 911 call was RS under Navarette

The citizen informant’s 911 call that defendant was drunk, belligerent, and driving gave reasonable suspicion to stop defendant under Naverette. City of Parma v. Coyne, 2024-Ohio-3192, 2024 Ohio App. LEXIS 3019 (8th Dist. Aug. 22, 2024). “And here, even expunging … Continue reading

Posted in Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on OH8: Citizen informant’s 911 call was RS under Navarette

N.D.Iowa: Verifying validity of an AW wasn’t unreasonable extension of stop

The stop was concededly valid, and a warrant was found. Verifying that the warrant is still out is not an unreasonable extension of the stop. United States v. Colquhoun, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149487 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 21, 2024). [Defendant … Continue reading

Posted in Excessive force, Franks doctrine, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on N.D.Iowa: Verifying validity of an AW wasn’t unreasonable extension of stop

N.D.Miss.: Def’s arguments against the PC showing in the SW go more toward a trial defense, not PC

Probable cause and good faith arguments about three images of child pornography in the affidavit out of 121 total, were more toward a defense of the charge and do not undermine probable cause. United States v. Murphy, 2024 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipatory warrant, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Standing | Comments Off on N.D.Miss.: Def’s arguments against the PC showing in the SW go more toward a trial defense, not PC

D.Conn.: Failure to disclose prior likely unconstitutional entry into def’s property in SW affidavit was material

The search warrant here was based on an unconstitutional prior entry to photograph firearms, and the issuing magistrate wasn’t told about that. That was material. Motion to suppress granted. United States v. Mahama, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145463 (D. Conn. … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Attenuation, Franks doctrine, Protective sweep, Reasonable suspicion | Comments Off on D.Conn.: Failure to disclose prior likely unconstitutional entry into def’s property in SW affidavit was material

N.D.Cal.: iCloud SW was particular as to subject and time

This iCloud warrant was based on probable cause and was particular and had a specific time limit. “Certain of the categories of evidence authorized for seizure by the February iCloud Warrant may appear overbroad in isolation but are sufficiently particular … Continue reading

Posted in Computer and cloud searches, Dog sniff, Franks doctrine, Particularity | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: iCloud SW was particular as to subject and time

CADC: Ptf’s arrest on mistaken identity was still reasonable

The District Court correctly granted qualified immunity to an officer who detained plaintiff due to a mistaken identity fugitive warrant because there was no showing that any reasonable official in the defendant’s shoes would have understood that he was violating … Continue reading

Posted in Arrest or entry on arrest, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CADC: Ptf’s arrest on mistaken identity was still reasonable

E.D.Mich.: Without showing no PC on remainder of affidavit, Franks challenge fails

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails because he doesn’t show that the affidavit does not show probable cause on the remainder. United States v. Chappell, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140479 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2024).* The officers apparently didn’t know that the … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Particularity, Plain view, feel, smell, Warrant execution | Comments Off on E.D.Mich.: Without showing no PC on remainder of affidavit, Franks challenge fails

MD: No fixed distance for SI; here, handcuffed def’s coat

Officers entered with an arrest warrant and found defendant in bed. He was handcuffed. Getting his clothing to dress him, a gun was found in a coat. This was valid as a search incident, despite his being handcuffed. Also, there … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Search incident, Stop and frisk | Comments Off on MD: No fixed distance for SI; here, handcuffed def’s coat

CA4: Unlocking a door to police knocks and opening it slightly is not consent to enter

Unlocking a door, here that opens out, when the police are knocking is not implied consent to enter. Quinn v. Zerkle, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19154 (4th Cir. Aug. 1, 2024). There was a reckless geographical error in the affidavit … Continue reading

Posted in Attenuation, Consent, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on CA4: Unlocking a door to police knocks and opening it slightly is not consent to enter

CA7: Franks does not apply to emergency cell phone pings

During the George Floyd murder unrest, defendant told an acquaintance he was traveling to Wisconsin with a machine gun to kill and loot. The acquaintance told law enforcement. They obtained ping information based on exigency, which was valid. Also, Franks … Continue reading

Posted in Cell site location information, Emergency / exigency, Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy | Comments Off on CA7: Franks does not apply to emergency cell phone pings

TX: Court of Appeals required state to show more than necessary to show cell phone nexus; remanded

“To the extent that the court of appeals read our opinion in Baldwin necessarily to require, as a prerequisite of probable cause, that an affidavit must establish (1) use of the cell phone either during, or immediately before or after, … Continue reading

Posted in Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Nexus | Comments Off on TX: Court of Appeals required state to show more than necessary to show cell phone nexus; remanded

CA8: When PC and GFE are the district court’s holding, challenging only PC on appeal means affirmed

When the district court holds that the warrant is valid both on probable cause and good faith, only challenging probable cause on appeal means that the alternative basis is sufficient to affirm. United States v. Bryant, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Waiver, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA8: When PC and GFE are the district court’s holding, challenging only PC on appeal means affirmed

D.Mass.: No discovery of covert Shapchat accounts for lack of materiality

Officers set up covert Snapchat accounts to communicate with defendant. He’s not entitled to discovery about that for Brady or Franks purposes because he can’t show materiality. United States v. Stroup, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132483 (D. Mass. July 26, … Continue reading

Posted in Franks doctrine, Reasonable expectation of privacy, Reasonable suspicion, Social media warrants, Waiver | Comments Off on D.Mass.: No discovery of covert Shapchat accounts for lack of materiality

MT: No REP from look in apt window from common area of apt complex; not his curtilage

Officers did not violate defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy by looking in the window of his apartment from a common area in his apartment complex. It was not his curtilage. City of Whitefish v. Zumwalt, 2024 MT 153, 2024 Mont. … Continue reading

Posted in Border search, Cell phones, Curtilage, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on MT: No REP from look in apt window from common area of apt complex; not his curtilage

CA8: It was not clearly established at the time that a dog bite is a 4A seizure

“After an on-duty police K9 bit Officer Daniel Irish while they both pursued a suspect, he sued the K9’s handler, Deputy Keith McNamara, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, Franks doctrine, Seizure, Standing | Comments Off on CA8: It was not clearly established at the time that a dog bite is a 4A seizure