Isn't the Franks challenge a case of something that's technically allowed but is exceedingly rare?
Yes, the general rule is that when challenging probable cause, you are limited to the "four corners of the document." That is, you can only base your arguments against the warrant on the fact that the warrant affidavit fails to establish probable cause justifying a search. Some profoundly dumb arrest warrant affidavits are still good enough to stand up to this challenge.
It doesn't have to be quite this bad, but "suspect had long hair and looked like a hippie so let's search his house" would fail on this standard. There have been the occasional situations where some judge had a bunch of pre-signed blank warrants and never even looked at the affidavits, or misconduct on that level.
Where
Franks comes in is where the COPS LIED MAN! That is, the cops either outright made up the basis for the warrant or knowingly relied on sources they knew were bogus, i.e. their sole basis for the search was some rambling schizophrenic who routinely called in fake tips.
There are two necessary elements. Cut and pasted from some random site:
- The affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement in the warrant affidavit.
- The allegedly false statement was necessary to a finding of probable cause.
However, even to get the hearing at all, you need at least to allege that both of these elements apply. Nick and the Barneswalker screamed at the top of their lungs that THE COPS LIED PEOPLE DIED! Or whatever. But no matter how loudly they screamed about the first element (and the cops didn't even lie), even by Nick's own Barneswalked claims, they were lies about absolutely nothing relevant to probable cause, and even if you entirely subtracted these OMG COPS LIED parts, there would still be probable cause.
Hence, he got no hearing. He hadn't even alleged reasons that would satisfy both prongs of the
Franks test, since even if he proved everything he argued for, it still would not have knocked out probable cause, rendering a hearing pointless.
My personal opinion is to err on the side of giving criminal defendants due process, and I wouldn't have complained too much about Nick getting that hearing, as smug as it would have made him, but I believe he ultimately would have lost, so even if an appeals court looks at it and says it was wrong to deny it, well. . .that's what "harmless error" is for because he would have lost anyway.
You faggots with the KKK stuff is very cringe. You should all neck yourselves.
