United States v. James Edward Colkley, United States of America v. Jamison Henry Johnson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a rule requiring affiants to disclose all potentially exculpatory information has noth- ing to recommend it”
• holding that omission of non- identification from photo spread was not material, and that the Fourth Amendment does not require an affiant to include all potentially exculpatory evidence in the affidavit
• holding that the culpability element of Franks is not satisfied when the most the record reveals is that the officer omitted facts from the affidavit because he did not believe them to be relevant to probable cause
• holding affiant’s omission of the fact that six eyewitnesses failed to identify a criminal suspect in a photo array did not satisfy the first Franks prong absent evidence that the affiant possessed \the requisite intent to mislead\
• finding that the agent’s failure to include photospread information in the search warrant application fell “far short of the level of flagrant police action Franks is designed to prevent ...”
• observing that to warrant a Franks hearing, the false statement must be “essential to the probable cause determihation” and if remaining content is sufficient to support the warrant, “no hearing is required”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).