16 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 664700green2 sentences2003In order to succeed on a Franks challenge based on an allegation of omitted information, the defendant must show: “(1) that the police omitted facts with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the affidavit misleading, ... and (2) that the affidavit if supplemented by the omitted information would not have been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.” State v. Winkler, 552 N.W.2d 347 , 352 n. 1 (N.D.1996) (quoting United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir.1994)). [¶ 8] In its order denying Holzer’s Motion to Suppress, the trial court did n 2003In order to succeed on a Franks challenge based on an allegation of omitted information, the defendant must show: “(1) that the police omitted facts with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the affidavit misleading, ... and (2) that the affidavit if supplemented by the omitted information would not have been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.” State v. Winkler, 552 N.W.2d 347 , 352 n. 1 (N.D.1996) (quoting United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir.1994)). [¶ 8] In its order denying Holzer’s Motion to Suppress, the trial court did n | 4 | 4 |
Franks v. Delawaregreen2 sentences2017Specifically, Heather Leavitt contends Timothy Leavitt, in his interview with Sergeant Goodman, did not state his attacker was the same stature as his wife, was unsure if the attacker had a pony-tail, previously portrayed the attacker as a male and did not say the knife used in the attack was “identical” to the set in his wife’s possession. [¶ 10] In State v. Rogahn, 2016 ND 93, ¶ 14 , 879 N.W.2d 454 , this Court explained the availability of a Franks hearing: “When a defendant alleges false or misleading statements have been made in the application for a search warrant, we address the issue u 2017Specifically, Heather Leavitt contends Timothy Leavitt, in his interview with Sergeant Goodman, did not state his attacker was the same stature as his wife, was unsure if the attacker had a pony-tail, previously portrayed the attacker as a male and did not say the knife used in the attack was “identical” to the set in his wife’s possession. [¶ 10] In State v. Rogahn, 2016 ND 93, ¶ 14 , 879 N.W.2d 454 , this Court explained the availability of a Franks hearing: “When a defendant alleges false or misleading statements have been made in the application for a search warrant, we address the issue u | 2 | 7 |
State v. Rangeloffgreen2 sentences2016The defendant’s burden of making a threshold showing as to the necessity of a Franks hearing is something less than a preponderance of thé evidence: Id. [¶ 15] The district court found Rogahn failed to make a substantial preliminary showing thé attesting officer made the allegedly false’statements knowingly, intentionally, or with a reckless disregard for the truth. 2003“The Franks standard has been extended to statements that are misleading by omission.” State v. Holzer, 2003 ND 19, ¶ 7 , 656 N.W.2d 686 (citing Rangeloff, 1998 ND 135, ¶ 9 , 580 N.W.2d 593 ). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Winklergreen2 sentences2003In order to succeed on a Franks challenge based on an allegation of omitted information, the defendant must show: “(1) that the police omitted facts with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the affidavit misleading, ... and (2) that the affidavit if supplemented by the omitted information would not have been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.” State v. Winkler, 552 N.W.2d 347 , 352 n. 1 (N.D.1996) (quoting United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir.1994)). [¶ 8] In its order denying Holzer’s Motion to Suppress, the trial court did n 2003In order to succeed on a Franks challenge based on an allegation of omitted information, the defendant must show: “(1) that the police omitted facts with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the affidavit misleading, ... and (2) that the affidavit if supplemented by the omitted information would not have been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.” State v. Winkler, 552 N.W.2d 347 , 352 n. 1 (N.D.1996) (quoting United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir.1994)). [¶ 8] In its order denying Holzer’s Motion to Suppress, the trial court did n | 1 | 4 |
Heckelsmiller v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Heckelsmiller v. State, 2004 ND 191, ¶ 4 , 687 N.W.2d 454 (stating prejudice prong of ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires defendant to establish reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s claimed errors, the result of proceeding would have been different). 2017See Heckelsmiller v. State, 2004 ND 191, ¶ 4 , 687 N.W.2d 454 (stating prejudice prong of ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires defendant to establish reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s claimed errors, the result of proceeding would have been different). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morrisongreen2 sentences2008“Whether the defendant has demonstrated recklessness or deliberate falsity is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” State v. Damron, 1998 ND 71, ¶10 , 575 N.W.2d 912 (quoting State v. Morrison, 447 N.W.2d 272, 275 (N.D.1989)). “ A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, when there is no evidence to support it, or when, although there is some evidence, on the entire evidence, the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.’ ” State v. Donovan, 2004 ND 201, ¶ 8 , 688 N.W.2d 646 (quoting St 2008“Whether the defendant has demonstrated recklessness or deliberate falsity is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” State v. Damron, 1998 ND 71, ¶10 , 575 N.W.2d 912 (quoting State v. Morrison, 447 N.W.2d 272, 275 (N.D.1989)). “ A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, when there is no evidence to support it, or when, although there is some evidence, on the entire evidence, the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.’ ” State v. Donovan, 2004 ND 201, ¶ 8 , 688 N.W.2d 646 (quoting St | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wamregreen2 sentences2001See State v. Wamre, 1999 ND 164, ¶24 , 599 N.W.2d 268 (stating trial court must consider whether a supplemented affidavit is sufficient to establish probable cause). [¶ 26] The existence of probable cause is a question of law. 2001See State v. Wamre, 1999 ND 164, ¶24 , 599 N.W.2d 268 (stating trial court must consider whether a supplemented affidavit is sufficient to establish probable cause). [¶ 26] The existence of probable cause is a question of law. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Malkingreen2 sentences2001In Malkin , at 946, the Alaska Supreme Court held, under its state constitution, that once a defendant establishes the right to a Franks hearing, the burden shifts to the State to show by a preponderance of evidence that false statements in an affidavit were not made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, and if the State does not meet that burden, the misstatements must be excised and the remainder of the affidavit tested for probable cause. 2001In Malkin , at 946, the Alaska Supreme Court held, under its state constitution, that once a defendant establishes the right to a Franks hearing, the burden shifts to the State to show by a preponderance of evidence that false statements in an affidavit were not made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, and if the State does not meet that burden, the misstatements must be excised and the remainder of the affidavit tested for probable cause. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ericksongreen1 sentence1998See State v. Winkler, 552 N.W.2d 347 , 352 n. 1 (N.D.1996) (discussing the extension of Franks analysis to omissions of information, but not applying the extension when the omission does not cast doubt on the existence of probable cause); see also State v. Erickson, 496 N.W.2d 555, 559-60 (N.D.1993) (holding trial court’s finding omission of information was not intentional or with reckless disregard for truth was not clearly erroneous). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Kirk C. Reivichgreen2 sentences1996We find it unhelpful in this case because supplementing Officer Cluchie's affidavit with the information about the officers' prior unlawful entry does not "cast doubt on the existence of probable cause." See, e.g., United States v. Reivich, 793 F.2d 957, 962 (8th Cir.1986) discussing limiting the extension of Franks; Wayne R. 1996We find it unhelpful in this case because supplementing Officer Cluchie's affidavit with the information about the officers' prior unlawful entry does not "cast doubt on the existence of probable cause.” See, e.g., United States v. Reivich, 793 F.2d 957, 962 (8th Cir.1986) discussing limiting the extension of Franks ; Wayne R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rydberggreen2 sentences1996E.g., United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir.1994); see State v. Rydberg, 519 N.W.2d 306, 308-09 (N.D.1994) (involving omission of information from a search warrant affidavit but not applying Franks analysis because the omission was not material information). 1996E.g., United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d 541, 546 (8th Cir.1994); see State v. Rydberg, 519 N.W.2d 306, 308-09 (N.D.1994) (involving omission of information from a search warrant affidavit but not applying Franks analysis because the omission was not material information). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Holzer
green
2 sentences2015“In order to succeed on a Franks challenge based on an allegation of omitted information, the defendant must show: ... that the affidavit if supplemented by the omitted information would not have been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.” State v. Holzer, 2003 ND 19, ¶ 7 , 656 N.W.2d 686 . [¶ 11] The district court found that inaccurate information in the affidavit fell short of demonstrating intentional falsehood or a reckless disregard for the truth. 2015“In order to succeed on a Franks challenge based on an allegation of omitted information, the defendant must show: ... that the affidavit if supplemented by the omitted information would not have been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause.” State v. Holzer, 2003 ND 19, ¶ 7 , 656 N.W.2d 686 . [¶ 11] The district court found that inaccurate information in the affidavit fell short of demonstrating intentional falsehood or a reckless disregard for the truth. | 4 | 2003–2015 |
State v. Donovan
neutral
2 sentences2016Id. at ¶22 (quoting State v. Rangeloff, 1998 ND 135, ¶ 10 , 580 N.W.2d 593 ). 2016Id. at ¶22 (quoting State v. Rangeloff, 1998 ND 135, ¶ 10 , 580 N.W.2d 593 ). | 3 | 2008–2016 |
Clark v. State
green
2 sentences2017N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12(2)(a); Clark v. State, 1999 ND 78, ¶ 23 , 593 N.W.2d 329 . 2017N.D.C.C. § 29-32.1-12(2)(a); Clark v. State, 1999 ND 78, ¶ 23 , 593 N.W.2d 329 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ude v. State
green
2 sentences2017Ude v. State, 2009 ND 71, ¶ 9 , 764 N.W.2d 419 . 2017Ude v. State, 2009 ND 71, ¶ 9 , 764 N.W.2d 419 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ratliff v. State
neutral
2 sentences2017“Whether a petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact, fully *440 renewable on appeal.” Ratliff v. State, 2016 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 882 N.W.2d 716 . [¶ 9] Heather Leavitt contends it is reasonably possible that some evidence would have been suppressed if a Franks hearing had been pursued. 2017“Whether a petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel is a mixed question of law and fact, fully *440 renewable on appeal.” Ratliff v. State, 2016 ND 149, ¶ 6 , 882 N.W.2d 716 . [¶ 9] Heather Leavitt contends it is reasonably possible that some evidence would have been suppressed if a Franks hearing had been pursued. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Rogahn
green
2 sentences2017Specifically, Heather Leavitt contends Timothy Leavitt, in his interview with Sergeant Goodman, did not state his attacker was the same stature as his wife, was unsure if the attacker had a pony-tail, previously portrayed the attacker as a male and did not say the knife used in the attack was “identical” to the set in his wife’s possession. [¶ 10] In State v. Rogahn, 2016 ND 93, ¶ 14 , 879 N.W.2d 454 , this Court explained the availability of a Franks hearing: “When a defendant alleges false or misleading statements have been made in the application for a search warrant, we address the issue u 2017Specifically, Heather Leavitt contends Timothy Leavitt, in his interview with Sergeant Goodman, did not state his attacker was the same stature as his wife, was unsure if the attacker had a pony-tail, previously portrayed the attacker as a male and did not say the knife used in the attack was “identical” to the set in his wife’s possession. [¶ 10] In State v. Rogahn, 2016 ND 93, ¶ 14 , 879 N.W.2d 454 , this Court explained the availability of a Franks hearing: “When a defendant alleges false or misleading statements have been made in the application for a search warrant, we address the issue u | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Gullickson v. State
neutral
2 sentences2016Cf. Gulliekson v. State, 2014 ND 155, ¶ 14 , 849 N.W.2d 206 (affirming a district court’s conclusion that counsel’s failure to challenge the execution of a daytime search warrant executed at 9:50 p.m. was not ineffective assistance of counsel). *460 III [¶ 13] Rogahn argues the district court erred in denying his request for a Franks hearing because the affidavit of probable cause contained two false statements regarding the . night of October 29, 2013. 2016Cf. Gulliekson v. State, 2014 ND 155, ¶ 14 , 849 N.W.2d 206 (affirming a district court’s conclusion that counsel’s failure to challenge the execution of a daytime search warrant executed at 9:50 p.m. was not ineffective assistance of counsel). *460 III [¶ 13] Rogahn argues the district court erred in denying his request for a Franks hearing because the affidavit of probable cause contained two false statements regarding the . night of October 29, 2013. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Ebel
green
2 sentences2015State v. Ebel, 2006 ND 212, ¶ 21 , 723 N.W.2d 375 . [¶ 12] An evidentiary hearing was held on the motion to suppress. 2015State v. Ebel, 2006 ND 212, ¶ 21 , 723 N.W.2d 375 . [¶ 12] An evidentiary hearing was held on the motion to suppress. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Damron
green
2 sentences2008“Whether the defendant has demonstrated recklessness or deliberate falsity is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” State v. Damron, 1998 ND 71, ¶10 , 575 N.W.2d 912 (quoting State v. Morrison, 447 N.W.2d 272, 275 (N.D.1989)). “ A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, when there is no evidence to support it, or when, although there is some evidence, on the entire evidence, the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.’ ” State v. Donovan, 2004 ND 201, ¶ 8 , 688 N.W.2d 646 (quoting St 2008“Whether the defendant has demonstrated recklessness or deliberate falsity is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” State v. Damron, 1998 ND 71, ¶10 , 575 N.W.2d 912 (quoting State v. Morrison, 447 N.W.2d 272, 275 (N.D.1989)). “ A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, when there is no evidence to support it, or when, although there is some evidence, on the entire evidence, the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.’ ” State v. Donovan, 2004 ND 201, ¶ 8 , 688 N.W.2d 646 (quoting St | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2008“Whether the defendant has demonstrated recklessness or deliberate falsity is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” State v. Damron, 1998 ND 71, ¶10 , 575 N.W.2d 912 (quoting State v. Morrison, 447 N.W.2d 272, 275 (N.D.1989)). “ A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, when there is no evidence to support it, or when, although there is some evidence, on the entire evidence, the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.’ ” State v. Donovan, 2004 ND 201, ¶ 8 , 688 N.W.2d 646 (quoting St 2008“Whether the defendant has demonstrated recklessness or deliberate falsity is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” State v. Damron, 1998 ND 71, ¶10 , 575 N.W.2d 912 (quoting State v. Morrison, 447 N.W.2d 272, 275 (N.D.1989)). “ A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, when there is no evidence to support it, or when, although there is some evidence, on the entire evidence, the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.’ ” State v. Donovan, 2004 ND 201, ¶ 8 , 688 N.W.2d 646 (quoting St | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Ballweg
green
2 sentences2008Scholes claims the sheriff and prosecutor knew, but failed to inform the judge, that there was a past allegation of sexual abuse of A.A. by Scholes, that A.A. was interviewed by professionals and that both Scholes and A.A. denied the sexual abuse. [¶ 17] “[T]o succeed on a Franks challenge based on omitted information, the defendant must show: (1) that [law enforcement officers] omitted facts with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the affidavit misleading; ... and (2) that the affidavit^] if supplemented by the omitted information^] would not have been 2008Scholes claims the sheriff and prosecutor knew, but failed to inform the judge, that there was a past allegation of sexual abuse of A.A. by Scholes, that A.A. was interviewed by professionals and that both Scholes and A.A. denied the sexual abuse. [¶ 17] “[T]o succeed on a Franks challenge based on omitted information, the defendant must show: (1) that [law enforcement officers] omitted facts with the intent to make, or in reckless disregard of whether they thereby made, the affidavit misleading; ... and (2) that the affidavit^] if supplemented by the omitted information^] would not have been | 1 | 2008–2008 |
City of Fairgo v. Thompson
green
2 sentences2006We will not reverse a district court’s findings of fact in preliminary proceedings of a criminal case “if, after the conflicts in the testimony are resolved in favor of affirmance, there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the [district] court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” Rangeloff, at ¶ 10 (quoting City of Fargo, 520 N.W.2d at 581 ). [¶ 24] In requesting a Franks hearing, Ebel asserts Officer Hill misrepresented to the district court that the rubber gloves and shop towels found in the sewer system could be dire 2006We will not reverse a district court’s findings of fact in preliminary proceedings of a criminal case “if, after the conflicts in the testimony are resolved in favor of affirmance, there is sufficient competent evidence fairly capable of supporting the [district] court’s findings, and the decision is not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.” Rangeloff, at ¶ 10 (quoting City of Fargo, 520 N.W.2d at 581 ). [¶ 24] In requesting a Franks hearing, Ebel asserts Officer Hill misrepresented to the district court that the rubber gloves and shop towels found in the sewer system could be dire | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Schmitt
green
2 sentences2004Although Ochoa did not directly address this issue in his appellate brief, a Franks issue is involved when “ ‘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.’ ” State v. Schmitt, 2001 ND 57, ¶ 10 , 623 N.W.2d 409 (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)). 2004Although Ochoa did not directly address this issue in his appellate brief, a Franks issue is involved when “ ‘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.’ ” State v. Schmitt, 2001 ND 57, ¶ 10 , 623 N.W.2d 409 (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 , 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Padgett
green
2 sentences1998Padgett, 393 N.W.2d at 757 . 1998Padgett, 393 N.W.2d at 757 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.