Franks test in Minnesota

2024See State v. Anderson, 784 N.W.2d 320, 327 (Minn. 2010) (stating that a Franks challenge requires the defendant to show that a search-warrant application “includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause”). 10 A. When the state obtained Steeprock’s saliva sample pursuant to a discovery order under rule 9.02, subdivision 2(1)(f), it conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment.

2024When a defendant seeks to invalidate a warrant on that basis, “the two- prong Franks test requires a defendant to show that (1) the affiant deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth, and (2) the statement was material to the probable cause determination.” Id. (quotations omitted).

2014To invalidate a warrant, the defendant must satisfy the two-prong Franks test by showing that (1) “the officer deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth,” and (2) “the statement was material to the probable 4 cause determination.” State v. McDonough, 631 N.W.2d 373, 390 (Minn. 2001) (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72 , 98 S. Ct. at 2864 ).

2014To invalidate a warrant, the defendant must satisfy the two-prong Franks test by showing that (1) “the officer deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth,” and (2) “the statement was material to the probable 4 cause determination.” State v. McDonough, 631 N.W.2d 373, 390 (Minn. 2001) (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72 , 98 S. Ct. at 2864 ).

2014To invalidate a warrant, the defendant must satisfy the two-prong Franks test by showing that (1) “the officer deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth,” and (2) “the statement was material to the probable 4 cause determination.” State v. McDonough, 631 N.W.2d 373, 390 (Minn. 2001) (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72 , 98 S. Ct. at 2864 ).

2014To invalidate a warrant, the defendant must satisfy the two-prong Franks test by showing that (1) “the officer deliberately made a statement that was false or in reckless disregard of the truth,” and (2) “the statement was material to the probable 4 cause determination.” State v. McDonough, 631 N.W.2d 373, 390 (Minn. 2001) (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72 , 98 S. Ct. at 2864 ).

2023“To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) his attorney’s 16 performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors.” State v. Mosley, 895 N.W.2d 585, 591 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).

2023“To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) his attorney’s 16 performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors.” State v. Mosley, 895 N.W.2d 585, 591 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).

2023“To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) his attorney’s 16 performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors.” State v. Mosley, 895 N.W.2d 585, 591 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).

2023“To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that (1) his attorney’s 16 performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that the outcome would have been different, but for counsel’s errors.” State v. Mosley, 895 N.W.2d 585, 591 (Minn. 2017) (quotations omitted); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984).

2015See McDonough, 631 N.W.2d at 391 ; see also Lieberg, 553 N.W.2d at 57 (stating “the trial court must resolve [a] claim only if the allegedly false statement is vital to a finding of probable cause”).

2015See McDonough, 631 N.W.2d at 391 ; see also Lieberg, 553 N.W.2d at 57 (stating “the trial court must resolve [a] claim only if the allegedly false statement is vital to a finding of probable cause”).

2014See Elwood, 423 N.W.2d at 676 ; Electric Fetus Co. v. City of Duluth, 547 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Aug. 6, 1996).

2014See Elwood, 423 N.W.2d at 676 ; Electric Fetus Co. v. City of Duluth, 547 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Aug. 6, 1996).

2014To establish a Franks violation, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the affiant officer knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false or misleading statement in, or omitted information from, the affidavit in support of the warrant; and (2) the affidavit would not establish probable cause if the allegedly false information is ignored or the omitted information is supplemented.” United States v. Cowling, 648 F.3d 690, 695 (8th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1905 (2012).

2014To establish a Franks violation, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the affiant officer knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false or misleading statement in, or omitted information from, the affidavit in support of the warrant; and (2) the affidavit would not establish probable cause if the allegedly false information is ignored or the omitted information is supplemented.” United States v. Cowling, 648 F.3d 690, 695 (8th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1905 (2012).

2014See Elwood, 423 N.W.2d at 676 ; Electric Fetus Co. v. City of Duluth, 547 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Aug. 6, 1996).

2014See Elwood, 423 N.W.2d at 676 ; Electric Fetus Co. v. City of Duluth, 547 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Aug. 6, 1996).

2001State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 105 (Minn.1989).

2001State v. Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 105 (Minn.1989).