{"id":63006,"date":"2026-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-02T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=63006"},"modified":"2026-02-01T14:23:38","modified_gmt":"2026-02-01T19:23:38","slug":"ca9-no-qi-for-knowingly-presenting-material-false-testimony-in-support-of-a-warrant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=63006","title":{"rendered":"CA9: No QI for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>No qualified immunity for knowingly presenting material false testimony in support of a warrant. <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2026\/01\/29\/24-1663.pdf\">Gibson v. City of Portland<\/a>, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2646 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2026).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As to Franks: \u201cEven 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.\u201d As to staleness, information about 2014-2017 in 2024 didn\u2019t make it stale where the government had information about ongoing activities. \u201cThe nature of digital evidence weighs against a finding of staleness.\u201d It was also particular. United States v. Burch, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17415 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 29, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The retired officer here was appointed by DPS as a \u201ccattle ranger\u201d 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\u2019s art. 38.23. Besides, there was no impersonation. State v. Coleman, 2026 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 99 (Jan. 29, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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: \u201cEven if there were a material omission, inclusion &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=63006\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,21,40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63006","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-exclusionary-rule","category-franks-doctrine","category-qualified-immunity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63006","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=63006"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63006\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63007,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63006\/revisions\/63007"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=63006"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=63006"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=63006"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}