Franks hearing in Washington

2016Importantly, the Franks test for material representations has been extended to material omissions of fact, [State v.1 Cord, 103 Wn.2d [361,] at 367[, 693 P.2d 81 (1985)].

2016Importantly, the Franks test for material representations has been extended to material omissions of fact, [State v.1 Cord, 103 Wn.2d [361,] at 367[, 693 P.2d 81 (1985)].

2023State v. Atchley, 142 Wn.

2023State v. Atchley, 142 Wn.

2021State v. Wolken, 103 Wn.2d 823, 829-30 , 700 P.3d 319 (1985). 2.

2021State v. Wolken, 103 Wn.2d 823, 830 , 700 P.2d 319 (1985).

2023The remedy for a Franks violation is striking the material misrepresentation from the affidavit and determining “whether, as modified, the 13 No. 56439-4-II affidavit supports a finding of probable cause.” State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454, 469 , 158 P.3d 595 (2007). 2.

2021Id. at 156 ; Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d at 469 .

2021Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 847 .

2017“Probable cause exists when the affidavit in support of the search warrant ‘sets forth facts and circumstances sufficient to establish a reasonable inference that the defendant is probably involved in criminal activity and that evidence of the crime may be found at a certain location.’ “ Ollivier, 178 Wn.2d at 846 - 47 (quoting State v. Jackson, 150 Wn.2d 251, 264 , 76 P.3d 217 (2003)). 5 No. 48047-6-II In Franks v. Delaware, the United States Supreme Court held that after a search warrant has been issued, a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing – a “Franks hearing” – regarding the v

2016We review the trial court’s findings following a Franks hearing to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, State v. Vickers, 148 Wn.2d 91, 116 , 59 P.3d 58 (2002), but review de novo the trial court’s legal determination that the qualifying information shows probable cause.

2016We review the trial court’s findings following a Franks hearing to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, State v. Vickers, 148 Wn.2d 91, 116 , 59 P.3d 58 (2002), but review de novo the trial court’s legal determination that the qualifying information shows probable cause.

2007United States v. Martin, 615 F.2d 318 (5th Cir. 1980); Cord, 103 Wn.2d at 367 . ¶30 This court first applied the Franks standard in Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898 .

2007United States v. Martin, 615 F.2d 318 (5th Cir. 1980); Cord, 103 Wn.2d at 367 . ¶30 This court first applied the Franks standard in Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898 .

2023The remedy for a Franks violation is striking the material misrepresentation from the affidavit and determining “whether, as modified, the 13 No. 56439-4-II affidavit supports a finding of probable cause.” State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454, 469 , 158 P.3d 595 (2007). 2.

2020State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454, 478-79 , 158 P.3d 595 (2007).

1989State v. Thetford, 109 Wn.2d 392, 398 , 745 P.2d 496 (1987) (a/k/a a Franks hearing, see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155 , 57 L.

1989State v. Thetford, 109 Wn.2d 392, 398 , 745 P.2d 496 (1987) (a/k/a a Franks hearing, see Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155 , 57 L.

2007United States v. Martin, 615 F.2d 318 (5th Cir. 1980); Cord, 103 Wn.2d at 367 . ¶30 This court first applied the Franks standard in Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898 .

2007United States v. Martin, 615 F.2d 318 (5th Cir. 1980); Cord, 103 Wn.2d at 367 . ¶30 This court first applied the Franks standard in Seagull, 95 Wn.2d 898 .

2007Chenoweth cites United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 1475 (9th Cir. 1985), which rejected a Franks challenge after concluding that police officers were no more than negligent in failing to detect the informant’s perjury conviction when conducting a criminal history check.

2007Chenoweth cites United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 1475 (9th Cir. 1985), which rejected a Franks challenge after concluding that police officers were no more than negligent in failing to detect the informant’s perjury conviction when conducting a criminal history check.

2007Thus, the Franks test is consistent with this court’s historical deference to a neutral magistrate. ¶37 Wood argues, though, that while a recklessness standard is consistent with the limited nature and purpose of the federal exclusionary rule, it is not consistent with our State’s more protective exclusionary rule. 14 In particular, Wood contends that this court’s rejection of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule supports a negligence standard, relying on State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92 , 640 P.2d 1061 (1982). ¶38 Wood’s argument begs the question.

2007Thus, the Franks test is consistent with this court’s historical deference to a neutral magistrate. ¶37 Wood argues, though, that while a recklessness standard is consistent with the limited nature and purpose of the federal exclusionary rule, it is not consistent with our State’s more protective exclusionary rule. 14 In particular, Wood contends that this court’s rejection of the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule supports a negligence standard, relying on State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92 , 640 P.2d 1061 (1982). ¶38 Wood’s argument begs the question.

2007See, e.g., State v. Olson, 74 Wash.App. 126 , 872 P.2d 64 (1994) (stating power consumption was twice normal usage did not materially affect probable cause and was not shown to be a reckless or intentional misstatement), aff'd 126 Wash.2d 315 , 893 P.2d 629 (1995); State v. Taylor, 74 Wash.App. 111 , 872 P.2d 53 (1994) (failing to specify that a controlled buy occurred outside of the house to be searched was immaterial and apparently innocent); State v. Lane, 56 Wash.App. 286 , 786 P.2d 277 (1989) (omission of informant's criminal history, current drug use, and pending charges was not material

2007App. 211 , 773 P.2d 96 (1989) (trial court properly denied Franks hearing based on alleged factual inaccuracies of nongovernmental informant).

2024State v. Muhammad, 194 Wn.2d 577 , 582 n.1, 451 P.3d 1060 (2019). 5 The record shows that both at trial and on direct appeal, he challenged only the first warrant, not the second. 9 No. 86183-2-I/10 The affidavit included a three-page recitation of Darby’s experience.

2024State v. Muhammad, 194 Wn.2d 577 , 582 n.1, 451 P.3d 1060 (2019). 5 The record shows that both at trial and on direct appeal, he challenged only the first warrant, not the second. 9 No. 86183-2-I/10 The affidavit included a three-page recitation of Darby’s experience.

2024We address each in turn. 3 A. Failure to seek a Franks hearing regarding the Waller Road affidavit Woods argues his trial counsel unreasonably failed to move to suppress evidence seized from “the Waller Road home.” Specifically, he argues, first, that the affidavit supporting the warrant is “insufficient under Franks v. Delaware.” Second, Woods contends even if the warrant was not reformed under Franks, it was insufficient to provide probable cause to search Waller Road under State v. Thein, 138 Wn.2d 133, 136 , 977 P.2d 582 (1999).

2024We address each in turn. 3 A. Failure to seek a Franks hearing regarding the Waller Road affidavit Woods argues his trial counsel unreasonably failed to move to suppress evidence seized from “the Waller Road home.” Specifically, he argues, first, that the affidavit supporting the warrant is “insufficient under Franks v. Delaware.” Second, Woods contends even if the warrant was not reformed under Franks, it was insufficient to provide probable cause to search Waller Road under State v. Thein, 138 Wn.2d 133, 136 , 977 P.2d 582 (1999).

2024We address each in turn. 3 A. Failure to seek a Franks hearing regarding the Waller Road affidavit Woods argues his trial counsel unreasonably failed to move to suppress evidence seized from “the Waller Road home.” Specifically, he argues, first, that the affidavit supporting the warrant is “insufficient under Franks v. Delaware.” Second, Woods contends even if the warrant was not reformed under Franks, it was insufficient to provide probable cause to search Waller Road under State v. Thein, 138 Wn.2d 133, 136 , 977 P.2d 582 (1999).

2024We address each in turn. 3 A. Failure to seek a Franks hearing regarding the Waller Road affidavit Woods argues his trial counsel unreasonably failed to move to suppress evidence seized from “the Waller Road home.” Specifically, he argues, first, that the affidavit supporting the warrant is “insufficient under Franks v. Delaware.” Second, Woods contends even if the warrant was not reformed under Franks, it was insufficient to provide probable cause to search Waller Road under State v. Thein, 138 Wn.2d 133, 136 , 977 P.2d 582 (1999).

2023Instead, that case addressed the applicability of the implied consent statute for testing blood alcohol concentration, RCW 46.20.308(2), which requires officers to give certain warnings about the right to refuse a breath or blood test if they have probable cause to believe the defendant was driving under the influence. 103 Wn.

2021App. 395 , 410, 109 P.3d 429 (2005), aff’d, 159 Wn.2d 500 , 150 P.3d 1121 (2007) (requiring a Franks hearing when the defendant makes a preliminary showing that an officer made a false statement in applying for a warrant and the “false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause”).

2021App. 395 , 410, 109 P.3d 429 (2005), aff’d, 159 Wn.2d 500 , 150 P.3d 1121 (2007) (requiring a Franks hearing when the defendant makes a preliminary showing that an officer made a false statement in applying for a warrant and the “false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause”).

2021App. 395 , 410, 109 P.3d 429 (2005), aff’d, 159 Wn.2d 500 , 150 P.3d 1121 (2007) (requiring a Franks hearing when the defendant makes a preliminary showing that an officer made a false statement in applying for a warrant and the “false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause”).

2021App. 395 , 410, 109 P.3d 429 (2005), aff’d, 159 Wn.2d 500 , 150 P.3d 1121 (2007) (requiring a Franks hearing when the defendant makes a preliminary showing that an officer made a false statement in applying for a warrant and the “false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause”).

2021App. 395 , 410, 109 P.3d 429 (2005), aff’d, 159 Wn.2d 500 , 150 P.3d 1121 (2007) (requiring a Franks hearing when the defendant makes a preliminary showing that an officer made a false statement in applying for a warrant and the “false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause”).

2021App. 395 , 410, 109 P.3d 429 (2005), aff’d, 159 Wn.2d 500 , 150 P.3d 1121 (2007) (requiring a Franks hearing when the defendant makes a preliminary showing that an officer made a false statement in applying for a warrant and the “false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause”).