Franks hearing in Indiana

2023Pre-Trial Motions 1 [9] Sloan requested a Franks hearing for the purpose of determining the truthfulness of certain statements in Detective Swisher’s affidavit, specifically 1 In Franks v. Delaware, the United States Supreme Court held that a hearing is required 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[.]” 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S. Ct. 2674 , 57 L.

2023Pre-Trial Motions 1 [9] Sloan requested a Franks hearing for the purpose of determining the truthfulness of certain statements in Detective Swisher’s affidavit, specifically 1 In Franks v. Delaware, the United States Supreme Court held that a hearing is required 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[.]” 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 , 98 S. Ct. 2674 , 57 L.

2023Ware v. State, 859 N.E.2d 708, 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (emphasis added). [12] Wainscott seeks relief under this version of a reverse Franks claim.

2014United States v. Atkin, 107 F.3d 1213, 1217 (6th Cir.1997); accord Ware v. State, 859 N.E.2d 708, 718 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (adopting and applying “reverse Franks claim” analysis of federal courts).

2025A Franks hearing is “[a] hearing at which the defendant is allowed to attack the validity of a search warrant[.]” Keeylen v. State, 14 N.E.3d 865 , 870 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

2025A Franks hearing is “[a] hearing at which the defendant is allowed to attack the validity of a search warrant[.]” Keeylen v. State, 14 N.E.3d 865 , 870 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

2023Casady v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1181, 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), 2 In its order denying Sloan’s motion for a Franks hearing and to suppress the evidence, the court refers to defense counsel’s mention that an “unknown individual(s) may have ‘piggy backed’ off the IP address in question.” Appellant’s App. Vol. III, p. 5.

2023Casady v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1181, 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), 2 In its order denying Sloan’s motion for a Franks hearing and to suppress the evidence, the court refers to defense counsel’s mention that an “unknown individual(s) may have ‘piggy backed’ off the IP address in question.” Appellant’s App. Vol. III, p. 5.

2019The trial court also considered the lawfulness of 1 In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held that “where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly or intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and [was] necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held.” A hearing at which the defendant is allowed to attack the validity of a search warrant in such a manner is referred to as a “Franks heari

2019The trial court also considered the lawfulness of 1 In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held that “where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly or intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and [was] necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held.” A hearing at which the defendant is allowed to attack the validity of a search warrant in such a manner is referred to as a “Franks heari

2018See Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154, 1160-61 (Ind. 2016) (noting that Indiana Evidence Rule 201(b)(5) now allows courts to take judicial notice of “records of a court of this state,” including its own records).

2018See Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154, 1160-61 (Ind. 2016) (noting that Indiana Evidence Rule 201(b)(5) now allows courts to take judicial notice of “records of a court of this state,” including its own records).

2018Id. ; see also Keeylen v. State , 14 N.E.3d 865 , 870 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), clarified on reh'g , 21 N.E.3d 840 (2014), trans. denied . 4 Both Officer May and Sergeant Crooke testified that they smelled the odor of raw marijuana coming from inside the house.

2018Id. ; see also Keeylen v. State , 14 N.E.3d 865 , 870 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), clarified on reh'g , 21 N.E.3d 840 (2014), trans. denied . 4 Both Officer May and Sergeant Crooke testified that they smelled the odor of raw marijuana coming from inside the house.

2018“Counsel’s performance is not deficient for failing to present a claim that would have been meritless.” Peak v. State, 26 N.E.3d 1010, 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

2018“Counsel’s performance is not deficient for failing to present a claim that would have been meritless.” Peak v. State, 26 N.E.3d 1010, 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

2016See Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014).

2014United States v. Atkin, 107 F.3d 1213, 1217 (6th Cir.1997); accord Ware v. State, 859 N.E.2d 708, 718 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (adopting and applying “reverse Franks claim” analysis of federal courts).

2014Franks protects only against omissions that are “designed to mislead, or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead, the magistrate.” United States v. Colkley, 899 F.2d 297, 301 (4th Cir.1990).