Failure to mention in a warrant application that the CI was getting leniency is not a Franks violation. (It’s practically common knowledge they probably are.) Robinson v. United States, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174791 (M.D. Tenn. Sep. 27, 2022):
Next, as to the assertion that Detective Nearn acted dishonestly when he “concealed” that the CI was cooperating for a lesser sentence, Petitioner has pointed to no case law that requires the affiant to disclose in a warrant affidavit the extent and nature of an informant’s motive to cooperate with law enforcement. The Court has looked itself and found the opposite. See United States v. Williams, 477 F.3d 554, 558-59 (8th Cir. 2007) (holding that the lack of information in a search warrant affidavit concerning promises of leniency is not per se misleading). Moreover, one would have to greatly underestimate the likely experience and common sense of the magistrate who issued the warrant to presume that he or she was not well aware of a likelihood that the CI had some kind of substantial motive to cooperate even without being specifically told that this was the case (i.e., that CI was cooperating for a lesser sentence). Thus, on this record, Petitioner has not met his burden to show that if Petitioner’s counsel had submitted this information at the evidentiary hearing it would have changed the outcome of Judge Crenshaw’s suppression ruling by showing that the good-faith exception was inapplicable.