Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Franks v. Delaware

Supreme Court of the United States · 1978 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentSearch WarrantsProbable CauseExclusionary RuleFourth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentsearch warrant

Facts

Police obtained a warrant to search Franks' apartment based on an affidavit that included statements that the affiants had personally spoken with two Youth Center employees and that those employees described Franks' usual clothing in a way that matched the victim's description. At the suppression hearing, Franks sought to call witnesses to show that the affiants had not personally interviewed those people and that the affidavit therefore contained intentional misstatements. The trial court refused to hear that evidence and limited review to the four corners of the affidavit. The search produced clothing and a knife that were introduced against Franks at trial.

Issue

Does the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments ever require a court to let a criminal defendant, after a search warrant has been issued and executed, challenge the truthfulness of factual statements in the supporting affidavit? If so, under what conditions is the defendant entitled to an evidentiary hearing and suppression?

Rule

A defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he makes a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant included in the warrant affidavit a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and the allegedly false statement was necessary to the finding of probable cause. The attack must be specific, supported by an offer of proof, and directed to the affiant's own deliberate falsity or reckless disregard, not merely negligence or innocent mistake. If, at the hearing, the defendant proves the falsity by a preponderance of the evidence and the affidavit's remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Officer Daniel Kerr obtained a warrant to search Nina Patel's townhouse. Nina moves to suppress, alleging the affidavit falsely stated that Kerr personally viewed stolen laptops through her window, and she attaches sworn statements from two neighbors that Kerr was out of town that day and a parking receipt placing him in Tucson; without that claimed observation, the remaining affidavit offers only an anonymous tip.

Is Nina entitled to an evidentiary hearing?

Explanation. A hearing is required when the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant included a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and the statement was necessary to probable cause. Nina's attack is specific, supported by sworn proof, directed at the affiant's own claimed observation, and the remaining affidavit would not establish probable cause.