Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
43 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1995–2026 15 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Franks v. Delawaregreen2 sentences2026In the present case, Davis argues that Detective Hatfield’s failure to disclose the noncompliance with R.C. 2935.23 tainted his search-warrant affidavit and that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a Franks hearing to examine the veracity of the search-warrant affidavit. {¶ 17} In Franks, the United States Supreme Court held that a hearing is required “where [a] 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 [a] warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly fals 2026Davis also filed a pro se motion for a hearing to examine the veracity of Detective Hatfield’s affidavit in support of the second search warrant, pursuant to the standard set forth in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), often referred to as a “Franks hearing.” Davis asserted that Detective Hatfield’s search-warrant affidavit failed to inform the reviewing judge that the investigative subpoenas were not issued in compliance with the statutory requirements. | 4 | 22 |
State v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2023Medina No. LAWRENCE, 21CA13 9 09CA0005–M, 2009-Ohio-5051 , ¶ 11, citing Roberts at 178, 405 N.E.2d 247 , quoting Franks at 171–172, 98 S.Ct. 2674 ; State v. Jackson, 2015-Ohio-3520 , 37 N.E.3d 1288 , ¶ 10. {¶16} As we note above, the standard of review for the denial of a Franks hearing appears to be unsettled. 2023Medina No. LAWRENCE, 21CA13 9 09CA0005–M, 2009-Ohio-5051 , ¶ 11, citing Roberts at 178, 405 N.E.2d 247 , quoting Franks at 171–172, 98 S.Ct. 2674 ; State v. Jackson, 2015-Ohio-3520 , 37 N.E.3d 1288 , ¶ 10. {¶16} As we note above, the standard of review for the denial of a Franks hearing appears to be unsettled. | 3 | 6 |
Dewey O. Mays, Jr., M.D. v. City of Daytongreen2 sentences2024Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained.” Id. {¶ 14} With the foregoing standards in mind, we see no error in the trial court’s refusal to hold a Franks hearing. 2024Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained.” Id. {¶ 14} With the foregoing standards in mind, we see no error in the trial court’s refusal to hold a Franks hearing. | 2 | 6 |
United States v. Rajaratnamgreen2 sentences2026See United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139, 156, fn. 19 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We also recognize uncertainty both in our own Circuit and in our sister Circuits as to whether to review the denial of a Franks hearing for clear error or de novo. 2026See United States v. Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d 139, 156, fn. 19 (2d Cir. 2013) (“We also recognize uncertainty both in our own Circuit and in our sister Circuits as to whether to review the denial of a Franks hearing for clear error or de novo. | 2 | 2 |
State v. McClaingreen2 sentences2020Specifically, appellant argues her trial counsel should have sought a hearing to challenge both officers’ “veracity as a whole,” based on the suppression hearing testimony of Officer McDermott that Officer Lewis pushed the door open with his shoulder, compared to McDermott’s statement in the affidavit that he “found the door was unsecured and opened by pushing on the door.” Appellant’s motion to suppress 6. challenged both the incursion on the curtilage and brief entry into the home, as well as the sufficiency of probable cause in the affidavit. {¶ 15} Generally, where a criminal defendant cha 2020Specifically, appellant argues her trial counsel should have sought a hearing to challenge both officers’ “veracity as a whole,” based on the suppression hearing testimony of Officer McDermott that Officer Lewis pushed the door open with his shoulder, compared to McDermott’s statement in the affidavit that he “found the door was unsecured and opened by pushing on the door.” Appellant’s motion to suppress 6. challenged both the incursion on the curtilage and brief entry into the home, as well as the sufficiency of probable cause in the affidavit. {¶ 15} Generally, where a criminal defendant cha | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Fowlergreen2 sentences2019In U.S. v. Fowler, 535 F.3d 408 (6th Cir.2008), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that “[t]he standard of review with respect to the denial of a Franks hearing is unsettled.” Id. at 415, fn. 2 . 2019In U.S. v. Fowler, 535 F.3d 408 (6th Cir.2008), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that “[t]he standard of review with respect to the denial of a Franks hearing is unsettled.” Id. at 415, fn. 2 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Seksegreen2 sentences2025United States v. Bateman, 945 F.3d 997, 1007 (6th Cir. 2019); State v. Sekse, 2016-Ohio-2779, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). {¶43} A defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing only upon making a “substantial preliminary showing” that (1) the affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement or material omission in the warrant affidavit, and (2) the allegedly false statement or omission was necessary to the finding of probable cause. 2025United States v. Bateman, 945 F.3d 997, 1007 (6th Cir. 2019); State v. Sekse, 2016-Ohio-2779, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). {¶43} A defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing only upon making a “substantial preliminary showing” that (1) the affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement or material omission in the warrant affidavit, and (2) the allegedly false statement or omission was necessary to the finding of probable cause. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Khaliqgreen2 sentences2025Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 ; Young, 847 F.3d at 348-349 ; State v. Khaliq, 2017-Ohio-7136, ¶¶ 23-25 (5th Dist.). {¶44} To warrant a Franks hearing, allegations of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard must be supported by an offer of proof identifying the specific portions of the affidavit alleged to be false, accompanied by supporting affidavits or a satisfactory explanation for their absence. 2025Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 ; Young, 847 F.3d at 348-349 ; State v. Khaliq, 2017-Ohio-7136, ¶¶ 23-25 (5th Dist.). {¶44} To warrant a Franks hearing, allegations of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard must be supported by an offer of proof identifying the specific portions of the affidavit alleged to be false, accompanied by supporting affidavits or a satisfactory explanation for their absence. | 1 | 2 |
City of Xenia v. Wallacegreen2 sentences2025Id. {¶80} In this case, it is undisputed that the Franks motion met the Crim.R. 47 particularity and specificity requirement. 2015This particularity requirement for a Franks allegation is compounded when a defendant asserts it via a motion to suppress, which must “state the motion’s legal and factual bases with sufficient particularity to place the prosecutor and the court on notice of the issues to be decided.” State v. Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d 54 (1994), syllabus; see also City of Xenia v. Wallace, 37 Ohio St.3d 216, 218 (“The prosecutor must know the grounds of the challenge in order to prepare his case, and the court must know the challenge in order to rule on evidentiary issues at the hearing and properly dispose of | 1 | 2 |
State v. Waddyyellow2 sentences2016Franks at 171-172 . {¶ 23} “ ‘Reckless disregard’ means that the affiant had serious doubts of an allegation's truth.” State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424, 441 , 588 N.E.2d 819 (1992), citing United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 602 (7th Cir.1984). {¶ 24} The standard of review of denials of a Franks hearing is unsettled, with some federal circuit courts applying a “clear error” standard, and others applying a “de novo” standard. 2016Franks at 171-172 . {¶ 23} “ ‘Reckless disregard’ means that the affiant had serious doubts of an allegation's truth.” State v. Waddy, 63 Ohio St.3d 424, 441 , 588 N.E.2d 819 (1992), citing United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 602 (7th Cir.1984). {¶ 24} The standard of review of denials of a Franks hearing is unsettled, with some federal circuit courts applying a “clear error” standard, and others applying a “de novo” standard. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Neilgreen2 sentences2026See also State v. Woods, 2024-Ohio-467, ¶ 48 (8th Dist.) (holding that before an omission can be considered material the defendant must show that the omission would have materially influenced the magistrate such that the omitted material would have negated probable cause if it had been included in the affidavit); State v. Blaylock, 2011- Ohio-4865, ¶ 15-16 (2d Dist.) (adopting Sixth Circuit standard providing that alleged omission of facts from a search-warrant affidavit warrants a Franks hearing only where the defendant makes a strong preliminary showing that the affiant excluded critical inf 2026See also State v. Woods, 2024-Ohio-467, ¶ 48 (8th Dist.) (holding that before an omission can be considered material the defendant must show that the omission would have materially influenced the magistrate such that the omitted material would have negated probable cause if it had been included in the affidavit); State v. Blaylock, 2011- Ohio-4865, ¶ 15-16 (2d Dist.) (adopting Sixth Circuit standard providing that alleged omission of facts from a search-warrant affidavit warrants a Franks hearing only where the defendant makes a strong preliminary showing that the affiant excluded critical inf | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crainegreen2 sentences2026State v. Craine, 2024-Ohio-2501, ¶ 13, fn. 3 (10th Dist.). 2026State v. Craine, 2024-Ohio-2501, ¶ 13, fn. 3 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2026See also State v. Woods, 2024-Ohio-467, ¶ 48 (8th Dist.) (holding that before an omission can be considered material the defendant must show that the omission would have materially influenced the magistrate such that the omitted material would have negated probable cause if it had been included in the affidavit); State v. Blaylock, 2011- Ohio-4865, ¶ 15-16 (2d Dist.) (adopting Sixth Circuit standard providing that alleged omission of facts from a search-warrant affidavit warrants a Franks hearing only where the defendant makes a strong preliminary showing that the affiant excluded critical inf 2026See also State v. Woods, 2024-Ohio-467, ¶ 48 (8th Dist.) (holding that before an omission can be considered material the defendant must show that the omission would have materially influenced the magistrate such that the omitted material would have negated probable cause if it had been included in the affidavit); State v. Blaylock, 2011- Ohio-4865, ¶ 15-16 (2d Dist.) (adopting Sixth Circuit standard providing that alleged omission of facts from a search-warrant affidavit warrants a Franks hearing only where the defendant makes a strong preliminary showing that the affiant excluded critical inf | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Joe Harrison Bennettgreen2 sentences2025United States v. Bennett, 905 F.2d 931, 934 (6th Cir. 1990); Bateman, 945 F.3d at 1008 . {¶46} Because Gibson failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly included a false statement or omission material to probable cause, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying a Franks hearing. 2025United States v. Bennett, 905 F.2d 931, 934 (6th Cir. 1990); Bateman, 945 F.3d at 1008 . {¶46} Because Gibson failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly included a false statement or omission material to probable cause, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying a Franks hearing. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Kyle Batemangreen2 sentences2025United States v. Bateman, 945 F.3d 997, 1007 (6th Cir. 2019); State v. Sekse, 2016-Ohio-2779, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). {¶43} A defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing only upon making a “substantial preliminary showing” that (1) the affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement or material omission in the warrant affidavit, and (2) the allegedly false statement or omission was necessary to the finding of probable cause. 2025United States v. Bateman, 945 F.3d 997, 1007 (6th Cir. 2019); State v. Sekse, 2016-Ohio-2779, ¶ 13 (12th Dist.). {¶43} A defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing only upon making a “substantial preliminary showing” that (1) the affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement or material omission in the warrant affidavit, and (2) the allegedly false statement or omission was necessary to the finding of probable cause. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2025“The gist of Franks is that if a credible challenge is made to the veracity of an affidavit used to secure a search warrant, a hearing must be afforded the defendant to allow him to proffer evidence to show that the information in the affidavits [was] intentionally or recklessly false.” State v. Taylor, 2010-Ohio-6580, ¶ 19 (4th Dist.). {¶76} At the hearing, the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the affiant, in this case, a law-enforcement officer, intentionally or recklessly included a false statement in the affidavit. 2025If the remaining statements fail to establish probable cause, “the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded.” Id. {¶77} In his motion, Curry alleged that the affidavit in support of the search warrant “was intentionally false and recklessly disregarded the truth about [a baggie containing a white substance, a baggie containing blue pills next to a digital scale, and a handgun] being in plain view.” Curry further argued that absent the false statements, “the affidavit provided insufficient probable cause for a search warrant.” In his request for relief, Curry specific | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torangreen1 sentence2025It shall be supported by a memorandum containing citations of authority, and may also be supported by an affidavit.”); State v. Toran, 2023-Ohio-3564, ¶ 36 (Gallagher, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Younggreen2 sentences2025Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 ; Young, 847 F.3d at 348-349 ; State v. Khaliq, 2017-Ohio-7136, ¶¶ 23-25 (5th Dist.). {¶44} To warrant a Franks hearing, allegations of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard must be supported by an offer of proof identifying the specific portions of the affidavit alleged to be false, accompanied by supporting affidavits or a satisfactory explanation for their absence. 2025Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 ; Young, 847 F.3d at 348-349 ; State v. Khaliq, 2017-Ohio-7136, ¶¶ 23-25 (5th Dist.). {¶44} To warrant a Franks hearing, allegations of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard must be supported by an offer of proof identifying the specific portions of the affidavit alleged to be false, accompanied by supporting affidavits or a satisfactory explanation for their absence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Saxtongreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. Saxton, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-925, 2019-Ohio-5257, ¶ 27-29 (trial court did not err in declining to hold a separate Franks hearing where defendant failed to make threshold showing requiring hearing). 2024See, e.g., State v. Saxton, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-925, 2019-Ohio-5257, ¶ 27-29 (trial court did not err in declining to hold a separate Franks hearing where defendant failed to make threshold showing requiring hearing). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sherongreen2 sentences2020Cuyahoga No. 98837, 2013-Ohio-1989, ¶ 35 (finding insufficient the defendant’s affidavit in which he averred that the paragraphs in the warrant affidavit “are completely false,” and “I did not engage in any drug transactions”). {¶ 30} Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request to hold a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware. {¶ 31} Appellant, in his brief, suggests that it is unjust to deny him a Franks hearing without providing him the names of the confidential informants and subjects of the stops, for how else could he prove that those persons did not 2020Cuyahoga No. 98837, 2013-Ohio-1989, ¶ 35 (finding insufficient the defendant’s affidavit in which he averred that the paragraphs in the warrant affidavit “are completely false,” and “I did not engage in any drug transactions”). {¶ 30} Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request to hold a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware. {¶ 31} Appellant, in his brief, suggests that it is unjust to deny him a Franks hearing without providing him the names of the confidential informants and subjects of the stops, for how else could he prove that those persons did not | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Stroziergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Falsogreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Paul Schumachergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Paul Searing and Joann Searing v. Edward B. Hayesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Roy L. Williams, Thomas F. O'malley, Andrew G. Massa, Joseph Lombardogreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Pete Young Buffalo, A/K/A Peter Brent Zaunergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Blaylock
neutral
2 sentences2020However, with respect to omissions, some courts have concluded that “‘except in the very rare case where the defendant makes a strong * * * showing that the affiant with an intention to mislead excluded critical information from the affidavit, * * * Franks is inapplicable to the omission of disputed facts.’” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Blaylock, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24475, 2011-Ohio-4865, ¶ 15 , quoting Mays v. Dayton, -8- 134 F.3d 809, 816 (6th Cir.1998); State v. Bangera, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2015-G- 0021, 2016-Ohio-4596, ¶ 62-64 . {¶13} When a Franks hearing is conducted, “the defendant mu 2020However, with respect to omissions, some courts have concluded that “‘except in the very rare case where the defendant makes a strong * * * showing that the affiant with an intention to mislead excluded critical information from the affidavit, * * * Franks is inapplicable to the omission of disputed facts.’” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Blaylock, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24475, 2011-Ohio-4865, ¶ 15 , quoting Mays v. Dayton, -8- 134 F.3d 809, 816 (6th Cir.1998); State v. Bangera, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2015-G- 0021, 2016-Ohio-4596, ¶ 62-64 . {¶13} When a Franks hearing is conducted, “the defendant mu | 5 | 2016–2022 |
State v. Dibble
green
2 sentences2023Omissions count as false statements if designed to mislead, or * * * made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead, the magistrate.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) State v. Dibble, 133 Ohio St.3d 451 , 2012-Ohio-4630, ¶ 18 . {¶15} In his motion for a Franks hearing, Beauford asserted that the affidavit for the search of apartment 1 was problematic because the residence at issue contained three apartments as opposed to two. 2023Omissions count as false statements if designed to mislead, or * * * made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead, the magistrate.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) State v. Dibble, 133 Ohio St.3d 451 , 2012-Ohio-4630, ¶ 18 . {¶15} In his motion for a Franks hearing, Beauford asserted that the affidavit for the search of apartment 1 was problematic because the residence at issue contained three apartments as opposed to two. | 2 | 2015–2023 |
State v. Pitts
neutral
2 sentences2020State v. Pitts, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1242, 2020-Ohio-2655, ¶ 28 , quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), syllabus. 2020State v. Pitts, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-18-1242, 2020-Ohio-2655, ¶ 28 , quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), syllabus. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. OK Sun Bean
green
2 sentences2020Specifically, appellant argues her trial counsel should have sought a hearing to challenge both officers’ “veracity as a whole,” based on the suppression hearing testimony of Officer McDermott that Officer Lewis pushed the door open with his shoulder, compared to McDermott’s statement in the affidavit that he “found the door was unsecured and opened by pushing on the door.” Appellant’s motion to suppress 6. challenged both the incursion on the curtilage and brief entry into the home, as well as the sufficiency of probable cause in the affidavit. {¶ 15} Generally, where a criminal defendant cha 2020Specifically, appellant argues her trial counsel should have sought a hearing to challenge both officers’ “veracity as a whole,” based on the suppression hearing testimony of Officer McDermott that Officer Lewis pushed the door open with his shoulder, compared to McDermott’s statement in the affidavit that he “found the door was unsecured and opened by pushing on the door.” Appellant’s motion to suppress 6. challenged both the incursion on the curtilage and brief entry into the home, as well as the sufficiency of probable cause in the affidavit. {¶ 15} Generally, where a criminal defendant cha | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Jackson
neutral
2 sentences2023Medina No. LAWRENCE, 21CA13 9 09CA0005–M, 2009-Ohio-5051 , ¶ 11, citing Roberts at 178, 405 N.E.2d 247 , quoting Franks at 171–172, 98 S.Ct. 2674 ; State v. Jackson, 2015-Ohio-3520 , 37 N.E.3d 1288 , ¶ 10. {¶16} As we note above, the standard of review for the denial of a Franks hearing appears to be unsettled. 2023Medina No. LAWRENCE, 21CA13 9 09CA0005–M, 2009-Ohio-5051 , ¶ 11, citing Roberts at 178, 405 N.E.2d 247 , quoting Franks at 171–172, 98 S.Ct. 2674 ; State v. Jackson, 2015-Ohio-3520 , 37 N.E.3d 1288 , ¶ 10. {¶16} As we note above, the standard of review for the denial of a Franks hearing appears to be unsettled. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Withers
neutral
2 sentences2023The trial court 2 We construed Workman’s February 16, 2016, “motion for Franks hearing” to be a petition for post-conviction relief under State v. Withers, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-865, 2013-Ohio-4201, ¶ 12-13 . 2023The trial court 2 We construed Workman’s February 16, 2016, “motion for Franks hearing” to be a petition for post-conviction relief under State v. Withers, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-865, 2013-Ohio-4201 , ¶ 12-13. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2023The supplemental motion challenged the validity of a search warrant as well as statements made by Boyd without warnings as required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). {¶ 6} At the April 29, 2021 hearing, both parties appeared and requested a continuance of the motion to suppress hearing in order to have all the necessary witnesses present to cover the issues raised in both of Boyd’s motions. 2023The supplemental motion challenged the validity of a search warrant as well as statements made by Boyd without warnings as required under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). {¶ 6} At the April 29, 2021 hearing, both parties appeared and requested a continuance of the motion to suppress hearing in order to have all the necessary witnesses present to cover the issues raised in both of Boyd’s motions. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Starks
neutral
2 sentences2022Montgomery No. 28158, 2019-Ohio-2842, ¶ 12 . {¶ 40} Here, the trial court held a Franks hearing and denied Williams’s motion. 2022Montgomery No. 28158, 2019-Ohio-2842, ¶ 12 . {¶ 40} Here, the trial court held a Franks hearing and denied Williams’s motion. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Rigel
neutral
2 sentences2022State v. Rigel, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2016-CA-50, 2017-Ohio-6906, ¶ 14 . 2022State v. Rigel, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2016-CA-50, 2017-Ohio-6906, ¶ 14 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Bangera
green
2 sentences2020However, with respect to omissions, some courts have concluded that “‘except in the very rare case where the defendant makes a strong * * * showing that the affiant with an intention to mislead excluded critical information from the affidavit, * * * Franks is inapplicable to the omission of disputed facts.’” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Blaylock, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24475, 2011-Ohio-4865, ¶ 15 , quoting Mays v. Dayton, -8- 134 F.3d 809, 816 (6th Cir.1998); State v. Bangera, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2015-G- 0021, 2016-Ohio-4596, ¶ 62-64 . {¶13} When a Franks hearing is conducted, “the defendant mu 2020However, with respect to omissions, some courts have concluded that “‘except in the very rare case where the defendant makes a strong * * * showing that the affiant with an intention to mislead excluded critical information from the affidavit, * * * Franks is inapplicable to the omission of disputed facts.’” (Emphasis sic.) State v. Blaylock, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24475, 2011-Ohio-4865, ¶ 15 , quoting Mays v. Dayton, -8- 134 F.3d 809, 816 (6th Cir.1998); State v. Bangera, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2015-G- 0021, 2016-Ohio-4596, ¶ 62-64 . {¶13} When a Franks hearing is conducted, “the defendant mu | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Miser neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Moran v. Burbine green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Allen, 08ap-264 (12-30-2008) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Bryant green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Collins neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Lafler v. Cooper green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Schumacher v. United States green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Bailey v. United States green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Brady v. Maryland green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Cochran, Ca2006-10-023 (7-2-2007) green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Shindler green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State ex rel. Williams v. McGinty green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Illinois v. Gates green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| United States v. Yellow Cab Co. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Parr, Wm-07-007 (3-7-2008) neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Sells, Unpublished Decision (4-14-2006) neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.