CA9: No QI for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant

No qualified immunity for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant. Gibson v. City of Portland, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2646 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2026).

As to Franks: “Even if there were a material omission, inclusion of the information obtained from the administrative subpoena to supplement information from Minor 1 would not destroy probable cause.” As to staleness, information about 2014-2017 in 2024 didn’t make it stale where the government had information about ongoing activities. “The nature of digital evidence weighs against a finding of staleness.” It was also particular. United States v. Burch, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17415 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2026).*

The retired officer here was appointed by DPS as a “cattle ranger” under state law to assist in locating stolen cattle. In an interview with defendant, he said he was a law enforcement officer [was he? kinda?]. The court of appeals below held that was a misrepresentation and excluded what he found out interviewing defendant. That was not enough to require suppression under Texas’s art. 38.23. Besides, there was no impersonation. State v. Coleman, 2026 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 99 (Jan. 29, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.