CA4: Conclusory allegations don’t satisfy Franks

“In arguing that he was entitled to a Franks hearing, Landaverde-Giron relies only on his own conclusory allegations to demonstrate intentional falsity or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant. He points to no evidence supporting his conclusion that any alleged falsehoods about his Facebook account were made with the mental state required for a Franks hearing. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Landaverde-Giron’s motion to suppress without a Franks hearing.” United States v. Landaverde-Giron, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 859 (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022).*

“Sixth and finally, Thornton alleges a Fourth Amendment Violation. … All he says is, ‘The material, warrants, affidavits and e[tc.]’ The Court simply cannot conjure any prejudicial error from these six words. The allegation is incomprehensibly vague and unsupported by specific facts. [¶] Given the vagueness of Thornton’s claims for relief and the total lack of factual support, he has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that he suffered a prejudicial error.” He was given an opportunity to amend and clarify and he didn’t. Denied. United States v. Thornton, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 249636 (E.D.Ky. Dec. 17, 2021),* adopted, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3446 (E.D.Ky. Jan. 7, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.