United States v. Calisto, Samuel J.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying Franks where non-affiant informants provided information regarding a drug investigation to a police officer who then obtained a warrant
• “If we held that the conduct of . . . the affiant[] was the only relevant conduct for the purpose of applying the teachings of Franks, we would place the privacy rights protected by that case in serious jeopardy.”
• “If we held that the conduct of *** the affiant, was the only relevant conduct for the purpose of applying the teachings of Franks, we would place the privacy rights protected by that case in serious jeopardy.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).