N.D.Ill.: A mistake on the address was made up for by other detail; no Franks violation

“To the extent the lack of an address lessens a warrant’s particularity, the other information more than makes up for it. … In this case, Walters highlights one factual error: No glass door bearing the numbers ‘13624’ existed when the officers conducted the controlled purchase or sought the warrant. But that statement wasn’t ‘material,’ because probable cause existed without it. As discussed above, Arbisi’s affidavit was credible and demonstrated a fair probability that contraband would be found at the location. The officers established that the CI didn’t have drugs, observed them enter the store, and monitored the CI as they regrouped with the officers. The false statement, therefore, didn’t impact the probable cause determination. What’s more, even if it were material, Walters doesn’t sufficiently allege that it was made knowingly or recklessly.” United States v. Walters, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155451 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 12, 2025).*

The trial court erred in finding no probable cause for defendant’s arrest. There was reasonable suspicion for FSTs, and the result there justified the arrest. State v. Cha, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6051 (Tex. App. – Dallas Aug. 12, 2025).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not raising standing where the government conceded standing and it had nothing to do with the trial court’s decision. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for putting exhibits into evidence at the suppression hearing to an attempt to rebut reasonable suspicion where they had nothing to do with the court’s decision. United States v. Spellman, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153786 (D. Neb. Aug. 8, 2025).*

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

Comments are closed.