DOJ-OGR-00003074.jpg
750 KB
Extraction Summary
8
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
750 KB
Summary
This legal document, page 140 of a court filing from April 16, 2021, outlines the legal standard for a defendant to obtain a "Franks hearing" to challenge the validity of an affidavit used for probable cause. It details the three-part test a defendant must meet, requiring a "substantial preliminary showing" of inaccuracies or omissions in the affidavit that were material and made with deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth. The document explains that a court must then determine the materiality of these errors by revising the affidavit to see if it still supports a finding of probable cause.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Shaw | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 2003).
|
| Gillette | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2d Cir. 1967).
|
| Ahmad | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
|
| Franks | Party in a cited legal case |
Referenced in the context of 'Franks violations' and 'Franks hearing', originating from the case Franks v. Delaware, ...
|
| Falso | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008).
|
| Lambus | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case Lambus, 897 F.3d at 397.
|
| Awadallah | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 2003).
|
| Canfield | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in the case United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713, 718 (2d Cir. 2000).
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | government agency |
Party in several cited legal cases, such as United States v. Shaw, United States v. Gillette, etc.
|
| E.D.N.Y. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, cited in a case.
|
| 2d Cir. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, cited in multiple cases.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | government agency |
Abbreviation for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, cited in a case.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document identifier (DOJ-OGR-00003074).
|
Timeline (1 events)
A Franks hearing, which is a legal proceeding to determine the validity of an affidavit supporting a warrant.
court
defendant
judge
Key Quotes (6)
"an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the underlying facts."Source
— United States v. Shaw
(Describing a requirement for a hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00003074.jpg
Quote #1
"ordinarily [a factual issue must be] raised by an affidavit of a person with personal knowledge of the facts;"Source
— United States v. Ahmad
(Explaining the standard procedure for raising a factual issue.)
DOJ-OGR-00003074.jpg
Quote #2
"substantial preliminary showing,"Source
— United States v. Falso
(Stating the requirement for a defendant to obtain a Franks hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00003074.jpg
Quote #3
"the claimed inaccuracies or omissions [were] the result of the affiant’s deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth."Source
— Lambus
(Outlining one of the three conditions a defendant must show to obtain a Franks hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00003074.jpg
Quote #4
"necessary to the [issuing] judge’s probable cause finding."Source
— United States v. Canfield
(Describing the standard for determining if a false statement or omission is material.)
DOJ-OGR-00003074.jpg
Quote #5
"the inaccuracies were not material to the probable cause determination and suppression is inappropriate."Source
— Id. at 718 (referring to Canfield)
(Stating the outcome if a revised affidavit still supports probable cause.)
DOJ-OGR-00003074.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,216 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 140 of 239
hearing requires “an affidavit of someone with personal knowledge of the underlying facts.” United States v. Shaw, 260 F. Supp. 2d 567, 570 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); see also United States v. Gillette, 383 F.2d 843, 848 (2d Cir. 1967); United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“ordinarily [a factual issue must be] raised by an affidavit of a person with personal knowledge of the facts;” otherwise “there is no basis for holding an evidentiary hearing or suppressing the evidence”).
The defendant’s allegations are analogous to those raised when evaluating defendants’ claims of Government Franks violations. To obtain a Franks hearing, a defendant must make a “substantial preliminary showing,” United States v. Falso, 544 F.3d 110, 125 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978)), that (i) there were “inaccuracies or omissions” in the affidavit, (ii) “the alleged falsehoods or omissions were necessary to the issuing judge’s probable cause or necessity finding,” and (iii) “the claimed inaccuracies or omissions [were] the result of the affiant’s deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.” Lambus, 897 F.3d at 397; see also United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42, 64 (2d Cir. 2003). Even if a defendant clears the first Franks hurdle with a substantial preliminary showing of a false statement or omission, the defendant is not entitled to a Franks hearing unless a reviewing court makes the legal determination that the false statement or omission was “necessary to the [issuing] judge’s probable cause finding.” United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713, 718 (2d Cir. 2000).
To determine whether alleged errors and omissions are material, a court should revise the affidavit (adding alleged omissions and correcting alleged errors), and determine whether the revised affidavit supports a finding of probable cause. See, e.g., Canfield, 212 F.3d at 719. If the revised affidavit supports a probable cause finding, then “the inaccuracies were not material to the probable cause determination and suppression is inappropriate.” Id. at 718. After adding the
113
DOJ-OGR-00003074
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document