S.D.N.Y.: Supposed Franks challenge really only expressing things for cross at trial

Defendant’s motion to reconsideration seems to raise a Franks-type challenge to the search which was not the focus of his original motion to suppress. What he raises “may be interesting cross-examination at trial, [but] they fail entirely to undermine the truth of the statement in the warrant application.” United States v. Del Villar, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215303 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2021).

Plaintiff’s theory that the stop was unreasonably extended wasn’t in his complaint; it was in a response to the motion to dismiss. If it were in an amended complaint, it would state a claim. In ruling on the motion, the court goes by the face of the complaint, and plaintiff fails to state a claim. Friedson v. Shoar, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33081 (11th Cir. Nov. 8, 2021).*

“Here, Defendant has not articulated the basis for her conclusory statement that her rights were violated, leaving the Court to speculate.” “Upon its review of the affidavit and search warrant, the undersigned finds no basis for Defendant’s conclusion that the search warrant was defective.” United States v. Rivera-Banchs, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215696 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2021).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.