In Michigan, a court will have a proceeding called a Franks Hearing when it is asked to find out if a police officer involved in a criminal case lied while trying to obtain a search warrant.
If a defendant has cause to believe that an officer involved in the case lied to get permission to execute a search warrant, there is ground for a Franks Hearing. A classic example of this is found in a case called “The People of The State of Michigan v. Marcus Dwane Manning.” This case laid out the law clearly regarding a trial court’s duty when it comes to having a Franks hearing under Michigan Law.
Grounds for A Franks Hearing
The duty of a trial court is to conduct a Franks Hearing once the defendant has shown that 1. The affiant intentionally and knowingly, or did act with a reckless disregard for the truth that allowed a false statement in the affidavit for a search warrant and 2. this false statement included in the affidavit was the reason the court found probable cause to issue a search warrant.
Michigan V. Manning
In Manning, the defendant’s counsel filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing (Franks Hearing) after being found guilty of several felony charges. The defendant boldly proclaimed that the warrant was issued to search a hotel room being rented by the defendant was obtained by false information. When a search warrant is issued on false information, any incriminating evidence discovered during the illegal search must be found inadmissible in court.
The defendant argued for a Franks Hearing on two factual points. The search warrant falsely claimed the defendant’s name was “Marcellus Manning”
The second major point the defendant pointed out was that the photo of another party involved was not given to the party’s family to confirm the party’s identity. The defendant argued that when these tainted facts were removed from the affidavit, the court would not be able to find probable cause to issue a search warrant.
The defendant’s request was denied by the court. The trial court held that even with the Defendant’s evidence taken into consideration, there was still probable cause. The affidavit could have not even listed the defendant’s first name and there still would have been enough evidence to grant a search warrant. The court held there was plenty of evidence that a crime was taking place in a room rented by a man with a surname of Manning. The court held that the defendant’s second point didn’t provide any authority that required the police to identify the person in a photograph by a family member. The court then denied the request for a Frank’s Hearing.
The court determined that the Defendant failed to show that the police acted improperly in gathering information pursuant to obtaining a warrant, and, therefore, a Franks hearing was not granted.
The United States Supreme Court’s Definition of A Frank’s Hearing
The term Franks Hearing comes from a 1978 United States Supreme Court case called Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154. In this case, the nation’s top court held that when the Defendant can make a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was intentionally and knowingly made, or if reckless disregard for the truth was made in an affiant in the affidavit of a search warrant, the fourth amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request. The Court wrote that, “If, after a hearing, a defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the false statement was included in the affidavit by the affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and the false statement was necessary to the finding of probable cause, then the search warrant must be voided, and the fruits of the search excluded from the trial to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.”
If you have any questions regarding a Franks Hearing, please call Shawn today at 616-438-6719. The call is free so you have nothing to lose by calling Shawn today! Shawn and his team of lawyers know how to get you the best results possible!