M.D.Pa.: Def’s Franks challenge fails for being vague as to what was inadequate and even which warrants were being challenged

“First, on a fundamental level, Bressi’s Franks request is insufficiently specific for this Court to reconstruct the warrants. Bressi does not point to a specific search warrant he claims was obtained through Agent O’Malley’s intentional or reckless disregard for the truth. He only gestures vaguely to the ‘warrant applications,’ the ‘initial warrant applications,’ and ‘later warrants.’ As Bressi’s subsequent filing demonstrates, many search warrants were executed in this case. Bressi himself seems to acknowledge that his allegations apply to different sections of different warrants. But this Court cannot apply the Franks test by babbling about falsehoods in the abstract.” United States v. Bressi, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161286 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 6, 2024).

“The Affidavit provided all necessary facts to establish probable cause to support a warrant to search Mr. Pope’s cell phone.” It was associated with him and the crime by wiretaps and location information at the time of offenses. United States v. Pope, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161322 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 9, 2024).*

“We decline to rule on whether the initial removal of the Children violated Parents’ Fourth and Fourteenth amendment rights because Parents failed to raise the issue before the magistrate court.” Children v. Doe (In re Children), 2024 Ida. LEXIS 104 (Sep. 6, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Cell phones, Franks doctrine, Probable cause, Waiver. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.