N.D.Ind.: Slightly different trial testimony doesn’t make a Franks violation; it’s what the officer knew at the time

Slightly different trial testimony here didn’t support a Franks challenge. The officer swore to what he knew when he applied for the warrant, and that wasn’t false. United States v. Bates, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156420 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 30, 2024).

Although it’s a “close call,” there was probable cause for the search warrants based on informant hearsay that also was not stale. “Rather, the court concluded that the evidence, although not recent, was reliable because multiple disparate sources provided consistent information.” The affidavit also showed nexus to the place to be searched. United States v. May, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155817 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 2024).*

The magistrate found the affidavit for warrant met the “low bar” of probable cause. In his objections, defendant is “playing word games” with “at” and “near” which the court finds unavailing. United States v. Herron, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156537 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.