Franks Hearing

[admin]

1. What is a Franks Hearing?


A Franks hearing is a court proceeding that challenges the validity of a search warrant. The hearing is named after the case Franks v. Delaware, which established the legal standard for challenging search warrants. 


2. How does a Franks hearing work?

1. The defendant requests a Franks hearing by filing a Franks motion with the judge. 
   
   
2. The judge grants a hearing if the defendant makes a preliminary showing that the affidavit contains false statements. 
   
   
3. At the hearing, the defendant presents evidence to prove that the affidavit contains false statements or omissions. 
   
   
4. If the defendant is successful, the judge suppresses any evidence obtained from the search. 
   

3. Why is a Franks hearing important?

A Franks hearing is a powerful tool for defendants to challenge the prosecution's case. It can significantly impact the outcome of the case. 


4. What evidence can be presented at a Franks hearing?

The defense can present witness testimony, affidavits, and other documentary evidence. 


5. When can a Franks Hearing be appealed?

A Franks hearing can be appealed after a trial court denies a defendant's Franks motion to suppress evidence, meaning if the court finds that the police did not make knowingly false or recklessly misleading statements in the warrant affidavit, and the defendant believes this decision was incorrect based on the evidence presented, they can appeal to a higher court to review the ruling.

[admin]

I will be appealing if need be!

[admin]

Franks v Delaware (US Supreme Court 1978)

Franks v. Delaware | Oyez

[admin]

I just realized something, I was ten when that case came out.

[admin]

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.