N.D.Ind.: Merely saying in a motion to suppress def was arrested without probable cause doesn’t state grounds

Defendant does not offer further context or analysis. Based upon his failure to fully address this issue, the Defendant’s argument regarding an alleged illegal search and seizure is denied without prejudice. See United States v. Collins, 796 F.3d 829, 836 (7th Cir. 2015) (noting that the parties, rather than the court, must research and construct available legal arguments). The Defendant may file a Motion to Suppress to fully address this issue.” United States v. Williams, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59904 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 6, 2020).

Defendant’s claim of falsity under Franks was at worst negligence. “Here, the district court did not err in finding that Thompson failed to meet this burden. To the extent that one statement in the affidavit misrepresented the source of the affiant’s information, as Thompson argues on appeal, there is no evidence that this was done intentionally or with a ‘high degree of awareness of its probable falsity.’” United States v. Thompson, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10729 (4th Cir. Apr. 6, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.