False Statements, Omissions (Franks v. Delaware)
Category > False Statements, Omissions (Franks v. Delaware)
Updated 2/1/2024Police should include actual images purporting to establish probable cause when preparing a warrant to search for child pornography.Defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his residence and electronics. He argued the search warrants were invalid because the descriptions of four images were faulty. However, the warrant applications contained sufficient factual detail to establish probable cause. The fact that the officer misdescribed one of the images and was taught not to include images of suspected child pornography in warrant applications was troubling, and the officers should include the actual images purporting to establish probable cause.id: 27918
Court erred in adjudicating the Franks issue without first determining the legality of the stop.The main premise of defendant's suppression motion was that the warrant was defective because the affiant officer filled it with intentionally false or reckless misstatements regarding the existence of reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's truck. Defendant only indirectly attacked the warrant as the product of illegally obtained evidence. The court erred in adjudicating the <i>Franks v. Delaware</i> (1978) 438 U.S. 154, issue of whether the affidavit contained false or deceptive facts instead of first determining the legality of the stop and search. The error was prejudicial because the allocation of the burden of proof with respect to the two issues is not only different, but diametrically opposite.id: 11071
Defendant's uncontested denial that an earlier drug transaction occurred was sufficient to require an in camera hearing concerning an informant's identity.Defendant argued the trial court improperly denied his motion for an in camera hearing concerning the identity of an informant. Defendant denied that the drug transaction described by the informant and affiant ever occurred. The prosecution presented no evidence in response. Under People v. Luttenberger (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1, defendant's evidence cast some reasonable doubt on the veracity of the presumptively correct affiant's statements. The trial court lacked the discretion to deny the discovery motion on the ground the defendant presented an inadequate challenge to the presumptively true allegations of the search warrant affidavit. The matter was remanded to allow the trial court to properly exercise its discretion.id: 17164
Updated 2/23/2024Evidence supported the interpretation in the ambiguous search warrant affidavit that suggested the officer did not make an intentionally false representation.The officer’s statement in the search warrant affidavit could be taken in two ways; 1) the blood on the Kleenex box matched defendant’s blood, which would have been a false representation because no testing had been done, or 2) the Kleenex box with blood on it, possibly the defendant’s blood had been taken into evidence to be analyzed. The trial court’s acceptance of the second version was supported by evidence. If the statement was intentionally false, and it was excised from the affidavit, probable cause still existed for the search. This was so even though the officer suggested a witness had tentatively identified defendant, “It could be him,” without noting that she had made a more positive identification of another individual in the photographic lineup. id: 26879
There was no basis for a Franks hearing where the defendant failed to show the affiant’s failure to mention defendant purchased the guns many years ago was deliberately or recklessly omitted from the affidavit. The trial court quashed the search warrant based on the affiant’s failure to indicate the guns illegally registered by defendant were registered by defendant while he was living at a different address. However, the trial court’s ruling was erroneous where defendant made no substantial preliminary showing that the information about the date he purchased the guns was deliberately or recklessly omitted from the affidavit. There was probable cause to issue the warrant to search defendant’s house given that the guns he was prohibited from possessing were registered to him and that they would likely be found in his house.id: 24401
Defendant was not entitled to a Franks v. Delaware hearing where the detective was unaware of the information regarding defendant’s dream until after he prepared the affidavit.Defendant argued that it was error to deny him an evidentiary hearing on the motion to traverse the search warrant because the affiant omitted material information regarding defendant’s dream of a murder. However, he failed to show the detective deliberately omitted the information to create a false impression or with reckless disregard for the truth. To the contrary, it showed he was unaware of the information at the time of the affidavit.id: 22403
The trial court properly denied the Franks v. Delaware motion where there was no showing the affiant misrepresented the facts in saying he saw high intensity discharge lights on the property.Defendants argued the trial court erred in denying the motion to traverse the search warrant in light of the reckless misstatements and material omissions in the warrant affidavit, both of which undermine the probable cause findings. The statement in question was that the officer saw high intensity discharge lights on defendant’s property. There was no evidence that he knew the statements about the lights were false or that they were made with a reckless disregard for the truth. While it is possible the lights were not high intensity discharge lights, the officer’s expertise in marijuana growing operations supported a reasonable belief that there were high density discharge lights. id: 21938
Defendant could not complain about writings excluded from the Frank's hearing where he did not move the writings into evidence.Defendant argued he was denied due process when the trial court refused to admit certain evidence relevant to the affiant's credibility at the Franks v. Delaware traversal hearing. Initially, he claimed 23 other search warrants showing similarity in averments should have been admitted. However, trial counsel never moved to admit the 23 warrant affidavits in evidence so there was never a ruling as to their admissibility. Next, defendant offered to admit another affidavit in which the affiant omitted a higher power usage comparison. Any error in excluding this evidence was harmless since the court excised similar information from the affidavit. The court should have admitted a bag of marijuana leaves seized from defendant's home to corroborate his claim that he bags his clippings for off-site disposal. However, any error was harmless where there was no dispute the officers recovered the bag from his residence. id: 17254
Affiant's statements regarding the severity of the fire were not reckless or misleading.Appellant argued that affiant intentionally misled the magistrate as to the severity of the fire in appellant's house in attempting to secure a search warrant. However, substantial evidence supported affiant's averment. The fire captain testified that the flames rose high enough above the ground floor to cause the glass on the second floor to bow. Prescription bottles in the top floor of the house were found melted down to a desktop and significant smoke damage was sustained throughout the house.id: 16426
Failure to obtain a ruling from court on Franks v. Delaware claim that the warrant affidavit contained false statements constituted a waiver of the issue on appeal.Defendant argued the trial court should have granted his motion to traverse and quash the search warrant for his residence that was based on claims that the affidavit in support of probable cause contained intentionally or recklessly misleading statements and omitted material facts. However, the trial court never ruled on this issue and it was therefore waived for purposes of appeal.id: 15629
Results of a search can be used to support the truthfulness of the statements in a search warrant affidavit where their credibility has been attacked in connection with a motion for a Frank's hearing.Although the probable cause for a search cannot be supported by the results of the search, the results can properly be used to support the truthfulness of the statements in the search warrant affidavit where their credibility has been attacked in connection with a motion for an evidentiary hearing under <i>Franks v. Delaware</i> (1978) 438 U.S. 154. The officers' statements that they smelled marijuana emanating from the residence was corroborated by the discovery of the adult plants. The officers' account was further corroborated by complaints of neighbors regarding the odor of marijuana. Defendant failed to make a showing that the officer made any false statements.id: 15630
Search warrant is valid despite illegally obtained information in the affidavit if that information is excised, officers would have sought the warrant without it, and probable cause still exists.When a search warrant affidavit contains illegally obtained information, that information must be excised, but if the officers would have sought the warrant without it, and the remaining information supplies probable cause, the warrant is valid. Contrary to defendant's claim the reviewing court need not additionally find that the magistrate would have issued the warrant without the tainted information.id: 15631
Fact that the search warrant affidavit did not detail the property owner's involvement did not invalidate the warrant.The affidavit's detailed descriptions of the activities of a number of people over a period of several days, would plainly have led a reasonable person to suspect that these individuals were engaged in narcotics trafficking, their frequenting respondent's apartment supported the suspicion that evidence of illegal activity might be found within. The extent of respondent's personal involvement in that activity was not in issue and his failure to even make an appearance did not invalidate the warrant.id: 11072
Informants' statement denying earlier statements attributed to them in the affidavit did not require that the court grant an evidentiary hearing under Franks v. DelawareThe search warrant affidavit contained information provided by two informants. Defendant moved to traverse the affidavit and quash the warrant. The motion was supported by the transcript of a deposition of one informant and a transcribed tape recording of an interview with the other. Both informants denied statements attributed to them in the affidavit. The motion was denied and defendant argued the court erred in failing to permit an evidentiary hearing in accordance with <i>Franks v. Delaware</i> (1978) 438 U.S. 154. However, the transcript of the tape recorded interview with one informant did not constitute a reliable showing of reckless or intentional false statements by the officers. The statement from the second informant was more reliable in that it was in the form of a transcript of a deposition - a sworn statement. However, the high level of external corroboration of the informant's statements in the affidavit and the complete absence of motivation for the police to choose such an unreliable individual if they were fabricating an informer supported the conclusion that the deposition testimony did not constitute a sufficient showing to support a <i>Franks</i> hearing.id: 11073
Officer acted properly when he removed for further inspection the jewelry seen in plain view in appellant's pocket.Officer found appellant who appeared to be a transient, slumped over a park bench, unable to speak clearly, in an area with a high incidence of burglaries, and with a number of apparently expensive ladies watches in plain view in his pocket. Detention of appellant under the circumstances was proper. Moreover, the officer acted lawfully when he removed for further inspection the jewelry seen in plain view in appellant's pocket.id: 11074
Officer's presence in the house was reasonable where he accompanied the property owner who was inspecting the premises to determine whether it was abandoned.The property owner had legal reason to seek admission to the premises to determine if it had been abandoned and to inspect for waste. The officer being validly on the premises as a result of the property owner's invitation was not required to blind himself to the narcotic debris seen in plain view when he entered the residence.id: 11075
Omitted information from the affidavit regarding the informant's credibility was largely cumulative and did not negate probable cause.Appellant argued the court erred in denying the suppression motion because the search warrant affidavit intentionally omitted material information about the informant's credibility. However, the informant's information was recent and extensive. He had little motive to lie about the proposed marijuana sale, since appellant's failure to participate would both discredit information and deny him his hoped-for reward. Even without knowing that law enforcement officers suspected informant of drug trafficking, a reader of the affidavit would suspect the informant was dirty in some way. Thus, the omitted information was largely cumulative and did not negate probable cause.id: 11076
Omitting information regarding prior searches from affidavit was not prejudicial where the second search was based on a showing of additional criminal activity.Defendant argued it was not proper for law enforcement officials to withhold information regarding prior searches of the same premises for magistrates considering warrant applications. However, the August 16 affidavit expressly referred to a prior search of the residence conducted pursuant to a warrant. Moreover, the issuance of the second warrant was based upon a showing of additional criminal activity.id: 11077
Plain view observation of pharmaceutical narcotics from outside of a public storage locker with the door open did not constitute a search.Officers were standing outside defendant's locker, with the door partially open, at a public storage facility. From that vantage point officers observed several boxes of pharmaceutical narcotics not available to the public in those forms and amounts. The officers' actions did not constitute a search. Moreover, when the officer observed the large quantities of drugs he believed were illegally possessed in the open storage locker, he had probable cause to arrest whoever possessed the storage locker.id: 11078
There were not material omissions from warrant affidavit despite the failure to include every past act that may have been unlawful.Defendant argued the search warrant affidavit failed to adequately disclose the informant's true character including her prior felony conviction, her psychiatric treatment history, her alleged perjury at his parole revocation hearing and her pending drug charges. However, the materials stated she earned money dealing marijuana out of her apartment and the court could reasonably infer criminal charges were pending based on additional statements that she had been arrested. It is unrealistic to expect an affidavit will include every past act that can be considered unlawful or dishonest. No material omissions concerning matters bearing on the informant's reliability were apparent.id: 11080
Affiant's failure to notice a brief reference to a prescription drug in complicated medical records was neither intentional nor negligent.Defendant, a registered nurse, was charged with the murder of 12 patients who died as a result of massive overdoses of lidocaine. He argued the search warrant affidavit was either deliberately false or made with reckless disregard for the truth in stating that lidocaine was never prescribed for four of the victims. Medical records did show the drug had been prescribed for those patients but it was a brief reference in a complicated chart. Evidence supported the court's finding that the failure to notice the brief reference to lidocaine in the files was neither negligent nor intentional.id: 11069
Court did not err in refusing to hold a Franks v. Delaware hearing where the informant was an off-duty police officer and appellant denied certain facts in the affidavit.There is no authority to support appellant's assertion that a police officer cannot be an informant or that an affidavit based on information from an informant who is a police officer is inherently suspect. Moreover, appellant's declaration which stated that he did not do what the affidavit alleged was nothing more than a self-serving general denial. It fell far short of the substantial showing requirement to obtain an evidentiary hearing to test the veracity of the affidavit in support of the warrant.id: 11070
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245