{"id":7307,"date":"2012-06-17T10:41:29","date_gmt":"2012-06-17T09:27:16","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-06-17T09:27:16","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=7307","title":{"rendered":"D.Me.: Multifaceted Franks<\/em> challenge failed because none undermined PC; they could be questions for trial"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant was charged with internet stalking and identity theft for using a false name, and he raised a host of issues over the search warrants, all of which failed. The government did not violate curtilage by pulling into defendant\u2019s driveway to view his house. The defendant lacks standing for the government\u2019s viewing his neighbor\u2019s wifi signal that defendant was accused of hacking<\/a>. Defendant\u2019s Franks<\/a> issues are each an overstatement of the situation, and, even so, excluding what he complains of still leaves probable cause. \u201cMost of the issues raised by the defendant are legitimate jury issues for the jury to consider in assessing whether or not the offender is guilty of the crime charged, but they do not meet the Franks<\/a> standard for an evidentiary hearing on this warrant application.\u201d None of the Franks<\/a> challenges were material to the finding of probable cause. United States v. Sayer, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82729 (D. Me. June 13, 2012).* <\/p>\n

Moral here: Taking the court at face value, none of these Franks challenges were even close. Do you have the time to make a massive Franks challenge that’s likely going to fail? Just because the client can pay enough fee to pursue it doesn’t mean that you should. Put that time and energy into defending at trial. After all these years, my view of Franks has evolved into a rule of reason: Unless it just screams lie or negligent omission, you lose, so use it to attack the officer’s credibility at trial, which is just what this court suggests, reading between the lines. But, even if it doesn’t undermine the officer as an exaggeration, does it create a reasonable doubt? <\/p>\n

Remember my Rule 1 of the Fourth Amendment: \u201cThere are no technicalities.\u201d There used to be, but not anymore. Not in the last 20+ years.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7307","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7307"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7307\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}