\u201cUnder the facts of this case, the Court concludes that law enforcement agents had the requisite reasonable belief that Sparks was residing at 6825 Walrond Avenue and\/or 5501 Smart Avenue and was present at the addresses at the time of the attempted execution of the arrest warrant. The Court sees no contradiction or fatal inconsistency with officers having a “reason to believe” that a suspect may reside \u2014 and be found \u2014 at two different addresses. Here, officers had satisfactory contemporary operative facts that pointed to Sparks residing at both addresses.\u201d United States v. Sparks, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13845 (W.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2020).<\/p>\n
The officers’ summary of a report wasn\u2019t as detailed as the report, but it wasn\u2019t misleading either. Therefore, a Franks hearing isn\u2019t required. United States v. Sheehan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13781 (D. Mass. Jan. 28, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cUnder the facts of this case, the Court concludes that law enforcement agents had the requisite reasonable belief that Sparks was residing at 6825 Walrond Avenue and\/or 5501 Smart Avenue and was present at the addresses at the time of … Continue reading