CA4: After an agreed remand for a Franks hearing, no materiality found

The parties previously agreed to a remand for a Franks hearing. Now it’s back. “None of these omissions-even when viewed together-change the probable-cause determination. At the outset, Hall’s identified omissions are problematic for him to rely upon. For omissions about the CI, although Investigator Carwell believed that the CI was completing a controlled buy for the first time, there is no indication that the CI’s ‘first-time’ status or assistance in another ‘incident’ would undermine his reliability. And nor is there any sign that the CI’s burglary charges would have done so either. Regarding omissions about the residence, Hall’s emphasis on the unknown identity of the drug seller neglects that the search warrant was also for a residence, not just a person. Further, the fact that the CI mentioned that he could purchase drugs at the residence ignores that he successfully completed a controlled buy there.” “Hall’s identified omissions do not materially undermine the other facts or the probable-cause finding. Even including Hall’s identified omissions within the affidavit, the facts remain clear.” United States v. Hall, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 35822 (4th Cir. Dec. 3, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.