E.D.Tenn.: Def doesn’t even attempt a Franks offer of proof and it fails

“Defendant fails to provide the requisite offer of proof to make a substantial preliminary showing that Agent Celeste intentionally or recklessly included false information in the Affidavit. Likewise, defendant fails to explain the absence of such an offer of proof, as required under Franks. Id. Contrary to defendant’s position, the fact that Agent Celeste ‘had access to and reviewed Mynatt’s CSMD’ [Doc. 79 p. 8] does not compel the conclusion that Agent Celeste intentionally misinterpreted the CSMD data or ‘entertained serious doubts as to the truth of’ her iteration of the CSMD data.” United States v. Newman, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220972 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 25, 2020).*

Parole officer’s knowledge of defendant’s continued drug abuse was justification for his arrest and search at the jail. State v. Polkey, 2020 La. App. LEXIS 1735 (La. App. 4 Cir. Nov. 25, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.