Todd Daugherty's Official Board › General › Main Board › Franks Hearing
Post Reply

Post a New Reply
Reply to thread: Franks Hearing
Username:
Post Subject:
Post Icon:
Your Message:
Smilies
Smile Wink Cool Big Grin
Tongue Rolleyes Shy Sad
At Angel Angry Blush
Confused Dodgy Exclamation Heart
Huh Idea Sleepy Undecided
[get more]
Post Options:
Thread Subscription:
Specify the type of notification and thread subscription you'd like to have to this thread. (Registered users only)




Attachments
Your allocated attachment usage quota is Unlimited.
New Attachment:


Thread Review (Newest First)
Posted by admin - 09-02-2025, 02:21 AM
You won't be saying that when I win and sue their asses and win!
Posted by WHINE KAREN WHINE KAREN WHINE - 09-02-2025, 12:40 AM
WHINE KAREN WHINE

[Image: giphy-downsized-medium.gif]
Posted by admin - 09-01-2025, 11:53 AM
It is now September 1, 2025. The Motion to Suppress was filed on September 9th, 2024, meaning it has been 1 year since it was filed and has YET to be heard! THIS IS A VIOLAION OF MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!
Posted by sylvester - 07-22-2025, 04:24 AM
[Image: rugrats-you-aint-gon-do-shit.gif]
Posted by admin - 07-22-2025, 04:12 AM
keep it up and get your ass banned
Posted by sylvester - 07-22-2025, 03:14 AM
[Image: i?id=55bc70111bb9767f7fc86d8ad4179785224...humbs&n=13]
(02-15-2025, 12:06 AM)admin Wrote: I will be appealing if need be!

[Image: no-parrot.gif]
Posted by admin - 07-22-2025, 02:29 AM
A Franks hearing is a critical safeguard against unconstitutional searches. Delaying it for nearly a year undermines its purpose and violates my right to timely judicial review. Courts have consistently held that delays motivated by strategic advantage or negligence are unconstitutional.
Posted by admin - 07-22-2025, 02:28 AM
The motion was filed in September of 2024 and now it's July almost August of 2025. Ten to eleven months has passed, and the court has yet to hear the case. Frank hearings are supposed to be timely, a delay like this is considered by other courts as "unreasonable"

Franks v. Delaware (1978)

- Established the right to challenge the truthfulness of statements in a search warrant affidavit.
- Requires a timely hearing once a substantial preliminary showing is made.

County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991)

- Held that delays in judicial proceedings must be reasonable.
- Even within the 48-hour rule for probable cause determinations, delays motivated by gathering more evidence or ill-will are unconstitutional.

“Such a hearing may nonetheless violate Gerstein if the arrested individual can prove that his or her probable cause determination was delayed unreasonably… motivated by ill-will… or delay for delay’s sake.” — County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44
Posted by admin - 02-15-2025, 06:34 AM
Held: Where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment, as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request. The trial court here therefore erred in refusing to examine the adequacy of petitioner's proffer of misrepresentation in the warrant affidavit. 

(a.) To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory, and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. The allegation of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard must point out specifically with supporting reasons the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false. It also must be accompanied by an offer of proof, including affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses, or a satisfactory explanation of their absence.

(b.) If these requirements as to allegations and offer of proof are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required, but if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to a hearing. 

(c.) If, after a hearing, a defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the false statement was included in the affidavit by the affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and the false statement was necessary to the finding of probable cause, then the search warrant must be voided, and the fruits of the search excluded from the trial to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.
Posted by admin - 02-15-2025, 12:10 AM
I just realized something, I was ten when that case came out.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Read the whole thread.