16 Maine opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine 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 sentences2017The supporting material must contain information that is “more than conclu-sory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine.” Id. [¶ 22] The motion court must then determine whether the defendant has made a showing sufficient to trigger a Franks hearing. 2017The supporting material must contain information that is “more than conclu-sory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine.” Id. [¶ 22] The motion court must then determine whether the defendant has made a showing sufficient to trigger a Franks hearing. | 5 | 9 |
State v. Hamelgreen2 sentences2022To determine whether to convene a Franks hearing, the court may hold a pre-Franks hearing at which a defendant must make “a substantial preliminary showing that: (1) the affidavit to obtain a warrant included intentional and knowing misstatements or misstatements made in reckless disregard for the truth, and (2) that the misstatements were necessary for a finding of probable cause." State v. Hamel, 634 A.2d 1272, 1273 (Me. 1993). 7 focused solely on the execution of the January 2018 search warrant, although the September 2017 search warrant and supporting affidavit were also admitted as exhibi 2022To determine whether to convene a Franks hearing, the court may hold a pre-Franks hearing at which a defendant must make “a substantial preliminary showing that: (1) the affidavit to obtain a warrant included intentional and knowing misstatements or misstatements made in reckless disregard for the truth, and (2) that the misstatements were necessary for a finding of probable cause." State v. Hamel, 634 A.2d 1272, 1273 (Me. 1993). 7 focused solely on the execution of the January 2018 search warrant, although the September 2017 search warrant and supporting affidavit were also admitted as exhibi | 4 | 5 |
State v. Dickinsongreen2 sentences2014The Franks rule also applies "if the overall falsity of the affidavit arises out of the [intentional or reckless] omission of facts negatory of probable cause.” State v. Dickinson, 2005 ME 100, ¶ 8 , 881 A.2d 651 (quotation marks omitted). 2014The Franks rule also applies "if the overall falsity of the affidavit arises out of the [intentional or reckless] omission of facts negatory of probable cause.” State v. Dickinson, 2005 ME 100, ¶ 8 , 881 A.2d 651 (quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Bilynskygreen2 sentences2011See State v. McInnis, 2010 ME 13 , ¶ 2 n. 1, 988 A.2d 994, 995 (citing State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107, ¶ 37 , 932 A.2d 1169, 1176 ). 2 . 2011See State v. McInnis, 2010 ME 13 , ¶ 2 n. 1, 988 A.2d 994, 995 (citing State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107, ¶ 37 , 932 A.2d 1169, 1176 ). 2 . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Van Sicklegreen2 sentences2017Motion for Franks Hearing [¶ 19] Having concluded that the court did not err in rejecting Thompson’s argument that the affidavit failed to support the District Court judge’s probable cause determination, we next consider the court’s treatment of Thompson’s motion for a Franks hearing. [¶ 20] In contrast to challenging the sufficiency of the information as it is presented in a warrant affidavit, a defendant may seek to invoke the process established in Franks and go behind that information based on a claim that the affiant knowingly or recklessly misstated information, see State v. Hamel, 634 A 2017Motion for Franks Hearing [¶ 19] Having concluded that the court did not err in rejecting Thompson’s argument that the affidavit failed to support the District Court judge’s probable cause determination, we next consider the court’s treatment of Thompson’s motion for a Franks hearing. [¶ 20] In contrast to challenging the sufficiency of the information as it is presented in a warrant affidavit, a defendant may seek to invoke the process established in Franks and go behind that information based on a claim that the affiant knowingly or recklessly misstated information, see State v. Hamel, 634 A | 2 | 2 |
State v. Boutiliergreen2 sentences2018State v Boutilier, 2011 ME 17 , ff 13-14. 2018State v Boutilier, 2011 ME 17 , ff 13-14. | 1 | 2 |
Burns v. Board of County Commissionersgreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Franks v. Nimmo, 796 F.2d 1230, 1237 (10th Cir. 1986) (“Factors relevant to the existence of a sham fact issue include whether the affiant was cross-examined during his earlier testimony, whether the affiant had access to the pertinent evidence at the time of his earlier testimony or whether the affidavit was based on newly discovered evidence, and whether the earlier testimony reflects confusion which the affidavit attempts to explain.”); see also Burns, 330 F.3d at 1282 (applying Franks factors to errata sheet). | 1 | 1 |
Franks v. Nimmogreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., Franks v. Nimmo, 796 F.2d 1230, 1237 (10th Cir. 1986) (“Factors relevant to the existence of a sham fact issue include whether the affiant was cross-examined during his earlier testimony, whether the affiant had access to the pertinent evidence at the time of his earlier testimony or whether the affidavit was based on newly discovered evidence, and whether the earlier testimony reflects confusion which the affidavit attempts to explain.”); see also Burns, 330 F.3d at 1282 (applying Franks factors to errata sheet). | 1 | 1 |
Lodge 817, Trustees Benevolent & Protective Order v. Supervisor of Assessmentsgreen1 sentence2018Chase I, 439 A.2d at 531. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mason McMurtreygreen2 sentences2017Consequently, the motion court is authorized, as a matter of discretion, to give the accused an oppoitunity “to supplement or elaborate on [the] original submissions.” Id. [¶ 23] The forum for this opportunity is a “pre-Franks” hearing that serves the narrow purpose of allowing the court to determine whether the defendant can make the showing necessary to warrant a full Franks hearing. 2017Consequently, the motion court is authorized, as a matter of discretion, to give the accused an oppoitunity “to supplement or elaborate on [the] original submissions.” Id. [¶ 23] The forum for this opportunity is a “pre-Franks” hearing that serves the narrow purpose of allowing the court to determine whether the defendant can make the showing necessary to warrant a full Franks hearing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torreygreen2 sentences2016See State v. Toney, 1998 ME 5, ¶ 4 , 704 A.2d 397 . 2016See State v. Toney, 1998 ME 5, ¶ 4 , 704 A.2d 397 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. McInnisgreen2 sentences2011See State v. McInnis, 2010 ME 13 , ¶ 2 n. 1, 988 A.2d 994, 995 (citing State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107, ¶ 37 , 932 A.2d 1169, 1176 ). 2 . 2011See State v. McInnis, 2010 ME 13 , ¶ 2 n. 1, 988 A.2d 994, 995 (citing State v. Bilynsky, 2007 ME 107, ¶ 37 , 932 A.2d 1169, 1176 ). 2 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chasegreen2 sentences2011State v. Chase (Chase I), 439 A.2d 526, 531 (Me.1982). [¶ 10] When disclosure of an informant’s identity is sought to support a motion for a Franks hearing that is based on an allegation of a faulty warrant and a claim that the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant should be suppressed, the defendant is not required to show that the informant is able to contribute information relevant at trial as required pursuant to M.R. 2011Chase I, 439 A.2d at 531 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Roy L. Williams, Thomas F. O'malley, Andrew G. Massa, Joseph Lombardogreen2 sentences2005Although the State is permitted to offer evidence in response to a defendant’s challenge at a Franks hearing, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 604 (7th Cir.1984), a court’s reliance on affidavits submitted by the State in response to a defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing presents a different question. 2005Although the State is permitted to offer evidence in response to a defendant’s challenge at a Franks hearing, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 737 F.2d 594, 604 (7th Cir.1984), a court’s reliance on affidavits submitted by the State in response to a defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing presents a different question. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 414332green2 sentences1993United States v. Southard, 700 F.2d 1, 10 (1st Cir.1983). 1993United States v. Southard, 700 F.2d 1, 10 (1st Cir.1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences1993Franks, 438 U.S. at 156 , 98 S.Ct. at 2676 ; State v. White, 391 A.2d 291, 293 (Me.1978). 1993Franks, 438 U.S. at 156 , 98 S.Ct. at 2676 ; State v. White, 391 A.2d 291, 293 (Me.1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Tyrice Glover
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 509-510; Glover, 755 F.3d at 821 . 2017Id. at 509-510; Glover, 755 F.3d at 821 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Rand
green
2 sentences2005Hamel, 684 A.2d at 1273; Rand, 430 A.2d at 821 . [¶ 18] As the Superior Court also concluded, even if Dickinson had made the substantial preliminary showing required to obtain a Franks hearing, probable cause for the search warrant would remain if the alleged false facts were excised from the warrant affidavit and the omitted facts were included. 2005Hamel, 684 A.2d at 1273; Rand, 430 A.2d at 821 . [¶ 18] As the Superior Court also concluded, even if Dickinson had made the substantial preliminary showing required to obtain a Franks hearing, probable cause for the search warrant would remain if the alleged false facts were excised from the warrant affidavit and the omitted facts were included. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.