CA4: Def’s failure to explain Franks claim means no abuse of discretion in denying motion to suppress

“[W]e agree with the district court that nothing in either motion justified a Franks hearing because, at bottom, Bordeaux did not explain the basis for his multiple assertions of falsity or make a sufficient showing that the officers acting knowingly or intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth. We thus affirm the denial of Bordeaux’s initial motion to suppress and find no abuse of discretion in the court declining to reconsider that ruling.” United States v. Bordeaux, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21511 (4th Cir. Aug. 26, 2024).*

Plaintiff’s civil Franks claim fails for lack of materiality even if it was reckless or intentional. Marvaso v. Sanchez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21418 (6th Cir. Aug. 23, 2024).*

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails on both prongs. United States v. Zafaranchi, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151873 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 23, 2024).*

The court finds the challenged sentence in the search warrant affidavit was misleading, but it was not material. United States v. Dejesus, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151453 (D. Conn. Aug. 23, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Franks doctrine. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.