7th Cir. adopts clear error review of Franks violation

The Seventh Circuit held that it follows the First Circuit and adopts the “clearly erroneous” standard of review for alleged Franks violations and not de novo review under Ornelas. Because search warrants are entitled to deference, deferential review under Gates requires this standard of review. United States v. Mancari, 463 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. September 1, 2006), following United States v. Owens, 167 F.3d 739, 747 n.4 (1st Cir. 1999).

Note: Rule of thumb: No warrant, de novo (Ornelas); warrant, clear error (Gates and Ventresca).

Franks violation failed because the court cannot find that the officer knowingly or recklessly misrepresented any fact in presenting the informant’s story and what he was told by other officers. United States v. Neal, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61939 (W.D. Ark. August 30, 2006).*

In a suit by an internet service provider against a Pennsylvania state’s attorney for violation of various statutory and constitutional rights in executing a search warrant for its records, the court dismisses some of the statutory claims finding § 1983 preempted by the Communications Decency Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act because of their comprehensive schemes. The Fourth Amendment claim has to be viewed in terms of the First Amendment claim, and that claim survives for the time being because the court lacks sufficient information to grant summary judgment for the defendants on that claim. Voicenet Communs., Inc. v. Corbett, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61916 (E.D. Pa. August 30, 2006).

Where there was probable cause to get a search warrant to look for and seize a boat, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity from suit. “The Court finds that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and affording him all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence, no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Scott’s actions were unlawful, and even if unlawful, were objectively unreasonable.” Brockinton v. City of Sherwood, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62060 (E.D. Ark. August 17, 2006).*

911 call at 1 a.m. from driver who was following an alleged drunk driver lasted eleven minutes and described defendant’s actions in detail, gave license number and description of vehicle and the caller was identified. When an officer could finally get there, he followed the defendant for five minutes and observed no traffic violations. The officer pulled the defendant over and found him DUI. The stop was lawful based on the detailed 911 call from an identified citizen informant, despite the lack of any erratic driving observed by the officer. Hertenstein v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 7860 (Tex. App. – Dallas September 1, 2006).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.