U.S. v. Arispe

14 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Mercer-Erwin

    669 F. Supp. 3d 625 (E.D. Tex. 2023)

    Under Franks v. Delaware, "there is a 'presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant' and a defendant must make a 'substantial showing' in proving the evidence should be suppressed." United States v. Gates, No. 419CR237, 2021 WL 3022037, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2021) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 156, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)); see also United States v. Arispe, 328 F. App'x 905, 906 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (holding the defendant is "required to make a 'substantial preliminary showing' " that he is entitled to a Franks hearing). The Franks inquiry requires courts consider: (1) "does the affidavit contain a false statement?"; (2) "was the false statement made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth?"; and (3) "if the false statement is excised, does the remaining content in the affidavit fail to establish probable cause."

  2. United States v. Mercer-Erwin

    Crim. 4:20-cr-212-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2023)

    United States v. Gates, No. 419CR237, 2021 WL 3022037, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2021) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 156 (1978)); see also United States v. Arispe, 328 Fed.Appx. 905, 906 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (holding the defendant is “required to make a ‘substantial preliminary showing'” that he is entitled to a Franks hearing).

  3. United States v. Wijetunge

    CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 15-144 SECTION I (E.D. La. Aug. 31, 2015)

    To obtain a hearing on a motion to suppress, a defendant must make a "substantial preliminary showing" that "(1) the affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, made a false statement in the warrant affidavit and (2) the remaining portion of the affidavit is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause." United States v. Arispe, 328 F. App'x 905, 906 (5th Cir. 2009). If the motion to suppress is based on omissions, a defendant must make "'a strong preliminary showing that the affiant excluded critical information from the affidavit with the intent to mislead the magistrate'" and, that if the information had been included, the affidavit would have been insufficient to establish probable cause.

  4. United States v. Jackson

    CRIMINAL 1:21-CR-00192 (W.D. La. Mar. 21, 2023)

    “[W]here 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, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request.” Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978); see also United States v. Arispe, 328 Fed.Appx. 905, 906-907 (5th Cir. 2009). If, at the Franks hearing, “the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affidavit's false material set to one side, the affidavit's remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.”

  5. United States v. Turner

    No. SA-21-CR-00494-OLG (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2022)

    A defendant carries the burden of making a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant of the warrant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, made a false statement in the warrant affidavit and thus the remaining part of the affidavit would 10 not support a finding of probable cause. United States v. Arispe, 328 Fed. App'x 905, 906 (5th Cir. 2009). Turner has failed to carry this burden.

  6. United States v. McKinney

    Case Number: 4:19-CR-00068 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2021)

    In assessing wrongdoing, courts should deny a motion for a Franks hearing if the affiant reasonably believed the veracity of the affidavit. See United States v. Arispe, 328 F. App'x 905, 907 (5th Cir. 2019). Here, the Court finds McKinney did not make a substantial showing the affidavits were deliberately or recklessly false.

  7. Thornton v. Lymous

    489 F. Supp. 3d 470 (E.D. La. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Id. at 10. 309 F. App'x 859, 864 (5th Cir. 2009) ; see alsoUnited States v. Arispe , 328 F. App'x 905, 907 (5th Cir. 2009) (finding that omission of the informant's criminal history from the affidavit did not render probable cause lacking).United States v. Jackson, 818 F.2d 345 (5th Cir. 1987).

  8. United States v. Mosquera-Castro

    CRIMINAL NO. 17-13-JWD-RLB (M.D. La. Jan. 16, 2020)

    The Fifth Circuit has stated that in "situations involving alleged omissions . . . [u]nless the defendant makes a strong preliminary showing that the affiant excluded critical information from the affidavit with the intent to mislead the magistrate, the Fourth Amendment provides no basis for a subsequent attack on the affidavit's integrity." United States v. Arispe, 328 F. App'x 905, 907 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Franks standard has also been applied by courts in reviewing the authorization of a wiretap.

  9. United States v. Gonzalez

    CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:18-CR-482 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2018)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    A defendant is entitled to a Franks Hearing upon "a strong preliminary showing that the affiant excluded critical information from the affidavit with the intent to mislead the magistrate." United States v. Arispe, 328 F. App'x 905, 907 (5th Cir. 2009). Defendant did not meet this threshold, thus the Magistrate Judge stated that a Franks Hearing was not necessary during the Hearing.

  10. United States v. Celestine

    CRIMINAL ACTION NO: 18-83 SECTION: "H"(1) (E.D. La. Aug. 22, 2018)   1 Legal Analyses

    United States v. Franks, 434 U.S. 154 (1978). United States v. Arispe, 328 F. App'x 905, 906 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Franks, 434 U.S. 154). -------- CONCLUSION