CA6: Under Franks, defendant’s burden is higher with omissions rather than falsities

While there were omissions for Franks purposes, defendant utterly failed to show that they were made to deceive the issuing magistrate. The defendant’s burden is higher with omissions rather than falsities. United States v. Speer, 419 Fed. Appx. 562, 2011 FED App. 0201N (6th Cir. 2011) (unpublished):

The term “false statement” also includes a material omission for purposes of Franks, but we have “repeatedly held that there is a higher bar for obtaining a Franks hearing on the basis of an allegedly material omission as opposed to an allegedly false affirmative statement.” United States v. Fowler, 535 F.3d 408, 415 (6th Cir. 2008). “Allegations of material omission are held to a higher standard because of the ‘potential for endless rounds of Franks hearings’ due to potentially ‘endless conjecture about investigative leads, fragments of information, or other matter[s] that might, if included, have redounded to defendant’s benefit.’” Id. at 415-16 (citations omitted).

On de novo review, officers stopping defendant for the license plate not matching the vehicle did not have reasonable suspicion that defendant was also involved in drug activity to continue the detention. Previous drug sales does not make reasonable suspicion. State v. Diede, 795 N.W.2d 836 (Minn. 2011) (4-3).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.