MA: Mere denial is not a “substantial preliminary showing” for Franks

The issuing magistrate had probable cause to issue a search warrant for possible child pornography because the affidavit contained the officer’s description of an image depicting nude juveniles from 13-15 years, and the tip provider employee’s personal observation of the images and defendant’s prior criminal history. Defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing because he merely challenged the veracity of the officer’s affidavit by offering his own account of events, and defendant still admitted the images depicted nude males. A mere denial is not a “substantial preliminary showing.” Commonwealth v. Dunn, 2024 Mass. LEXIS 186 (May 9, 2024).*

A dismissed civil case against an officer for malfeasance in office fails to show misconduct with a falsified search warrant to overcome defendant’s voluntary guilty plea. [Apparently the act occurred, but it just wasn’t a crime.] United States v. Jordan, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83439 (E.D. Va. May 7, 2024).*

Defendant’s vehicle was particularly described for a warrant to be executed on it. United States v. Kirtdoll, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 11240 (6th Cir. May 8, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Issue preclusion, Particularity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.