A search warrant affidavit doesn\u2019t have to be headed \u201caffidavit\u201d to be one, and the attachments are considered sworn to if referred to in the body. The affidavit\u2019s typo of having the 16th as the date of the offense when it was the 15th is not a constitutional error because it was obvious what was meant. United States v. Jackson, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97668 (S.D. Ill. June 11, 2018).<\/p>\n
Defendant\u2019s post-conviction Franks claim fails for not showing intentional disregard or materiality. Djenasevic v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98527 (M.D. Fla. June 12, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A search warrant affidavit doesn\u2019t have to be headed \u201caffidavit\u201d to be one, and the attachments are considered sworn to if referred to in the body. The affidavit\u2019s typo of having the 16th as the date of the offense when … Continue reading