Document: 438 U.S. 154 98 S.Ct. 2674 57 L.Ed.2d 667 Jerome FRANKS, Petitioner,v.State of DELAWARE. No. 77-5176. Argued Feb. 27, 1978. Decided June 26, Syllabus Prior to petitioner's Delaware state trial on rape and related charges in connection with his motion suppress Fourth Amendment grounds items clothing a knife found search apartment, he challenged the truthfulness certain factual statements made police affidavit supporting warrant sought call witnesses prove misstatements. The court sustained State's objection such proposed testimony denied suppress, were admitted as evidence at ensuing trial, which petitioner was convicted. Supreme Court affirmed, holding that defendant under no circumstances may challenge veracity sworn statement used by procure warrant. Held : Where makes substantial preliminary showing false knowingly intentionally, or reckless disregard for truth, included affiant affidavit, if allegedly is necessary finding probable cause, Amendment, incorporated Fourteenth requires hearing be held defendant's request. here therefore erred refusing examine adequacy proffer misrepresentation affidavit. Pp. 155-156, 164-172. (a) To mandate an evidentiary hearing, challenger's attack must more than conclusory supported mere desire cross-examine. allegation deliberate falsehood point out specifically reasons portion claimed false. It also accompanied offer proof, including affidavits otherwise reliable witnesses, satisfactory explanation their absence. P. 171. (b) If these requirements allegations proof are met, if, when material subject alleged falsity set one side, there remains sufficient content support required, but remaining insufficient, entitled Amendments hearing. 171-172. (c) If, after establishes preponderance then voided fruits excluded from same extent cause lacking face 155-156. 373 A.2d 578, reversed remanded. Donald W. Huntley, Wilmington, Del., petitioner. Harrison F. Turner, Smyrna, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents important longstanding issue law. Does criminal proceeding ever have right, Amendments, subsequent ex parte issuance warrant, warrant? 2 In present held, matter first impression it, so We reverse, we hold that, where event perjury established evidence, and, affidavit's insufficient establish 3 * controversy over this arose Franks' conviction rape, kidnaping, burglary. On Friday, March 5, 1976, Mrs. Cynthia Bailey told Dover, she had been confronted her home earlier morning man knife, sexually assaulted her. She described assailant's age, race, height, build, facial hair, gave detailed description consisting white thermal undershirt, black pants silver gold buckle, brown leather three-quarter-length coat, dark knit cap wore pulled down around eyes. 4 That day, Franks coincidentally taken into custody assault involving 15-year-old girl, Brenda B. ______, six days earlier. After formal arrest, while awaiting bail Family Court, stated Robert McClements, youth officer accompanying him, surprised "about ______. I know thought you said Bailey. don't her." Tr. 175, 186. At time statement, not yet recited rights Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694 (1966). 5 following Monday, 8, Officer McClements happened mention courthouse incident detective, Ronald R. Brooks, who working case. 186, 190-191. 9, Detective Brooks Larry D. Gray submitted Peace apartment.1 paragraph 8 "probable page" McClements. 10, it noted assailant given above-mentioned clothing. Finally, attempt confirm typical outfit matched assailant. Paragraph 15 recited: "On Tuesday, 3/9/76, your contacted James Williams Wesley Lucas Youth Center employed did personal conversation both people." Paragraphs 17 respectively stated: "Mr. revealed normal dress does consist undershirt jacket," addition jacket, often wears green hat." 6 issued basis App. 9. Pursuant searched apartment hat, pants, kitchen table, single-blade knife. All ultimately introduced trial. 7 however, counsel filed written search; its show seizure violation Amendments. Id., 11-12. defense orally amended include affidavit; requested right Center, Morrison, formerly Center.2 14-17. Counsel asserted Morrison would testify neither personally interviewed affiants, although they might talked another officer, any information them "somewhat different" what 16. Defense charged misstatements inadvertently, "bad faith." 25. permission seek obtained rights, thereby tainted fruit illegally confession. 17, 27. rebuttal, attorney argued detail, 15-24, Del.Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§ 2306, 2307 (1974), contemplated limited questions sufficiency based purportedly, majority States whose practice dictated statute observed rule;3 federal cases distinguished because Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 41(e).4 He reserved general subfacial Rugendorf United States, 376 528, 531-532, 84 825, 827-828, 11 887 (1964), disposed ground even permitted, inaccuracies case's "were only peripheral relevancy being within knowledge affiant, go integrity affidavit." 532, S.Ct., 828. State objected "going behind [the affidavit] way," decide "on four corners" 21. 9 evidence. 25, denied, 192-196. Petitioner judgment acquittal and/or new Record Doc. 23, repeated admission stating "should allowed impeach Affidavit Search Warrant purposeful contained therein." 2. sentenced two consecutive terms 25 years each additional life sentence. 10 appeal, affirmed. 578 (1977). agreed deemed "majority rule" upon could made: "We agree rule reasons. First, function issuing magistrate determine reliability credibility affiants deciding whether requirement has met. There need demonstrated interfering function. Second, nor suppression hearings adjudications guilt innocence; matters properly considered merits." 580. 12 Because resolution, consider "other contentions, relating impeachment purposes." Ibid. 13 petition certiorari presented affidavit.5 importance question, conflict among courts, granted certiorari. 434 889, 261, 54 174 II 14 well note how compelled reach proffered particular, proposals independent adequate harmless error do dispose controversy. Respondent argues counsel, representing him failed before contrary Del.Super.Ct.Rule 41(e) "shall made." Delaware, claim merits. A ruling merits question highest leaves open review Manhattan Life Ins. Co. Cohen, 234 123, 134, 34 874, 877, 58 L.Ed. 1245 (1914); Raley Ohio, 360 423, 436-437, 79 1257, 1265-1266, 1344 (1959); Boykin Alabama, 395 238, 241-242, 89 1709, 1711-1712, 23 274 (1969). next suggests harmless. Assuming, arguendo, respondent says, valid, should tested excluded, still clear beyond reasonable doubt complained contribute onviction. Chambers Maroney, 399 42, 52-53, 90 1975, 1981-1982, 26 419 (1970). contention falls own weight. sole consent. admitted, 37, engaged sexual relations day question. testified, 50-51, 69-70, consented this, petitioner, encountering house, threatened force submit. full consent present. 254, 271. corroborate lacking, stainless steel, wooden-handled detectives table rape. 195-196; Magistrate's Return 23. admission, arguing involved seen "pitch blackness." 195. testified was, like single-edged pocket length thickness crime. 69, 114-115. carefully elicited fact apartment. 196. Although jury "merely exemplary generic class weapon testimonially victim," Brief 15-16, clearly meant suggest against Had quashed, cannot say assurance reached decision consent, particularly since countervailing issue. note, addition, why treated situation States. U.S., 828 (emphasis added). emphasized "erroneous . those affiant" thus "fail[ed] bad faith misrepresentations Commissioner securing warrant." 533, 828.6 Here, whatever misstatements, directly placed not, claimed, speak Morrison. Whether conversations took place surely "within affiant[s]." respondent's brief puts forth little establishing 16, oral argument appeared disclaim reliance Rugendorf. Oral Arg. 30. III 18 derivative exclusionary applicable Mapp 367 643, 81 1684, 1081 (1961), permitted executed, encounters conflicting values. bulwark protection, course, Clause, requiring absent exceptions, obtain neutral disinterested embarking search. today circumstances, warrant's derive our language Clause itself, takes affiant's good premise: "[N]o Warrants shall issue, Oath affirmation ." Judge Frankel, Halsey, 257 F.Supp. 1002, 1005 (S.D.N.Y.1966), aff'd, Docket 31369 (CA2, 12, 1967) (unreported), put simply: "[W]hen demands comprise 'probable cause,' obvious assumption will truthful showing" original). mean "truthful" sense every necessarily correct, founded hearsay received informants, sometimes garnered hastily. But believed appropriately accepted true. law, see Nathanson 290 41, 47, 13, 78 159 (1933); Giordenello 357 480, 485-486, 1245, 1249-1250, 1503 (1958); Aguilar Texas, 378 108, 114-115, 1509, 1513-1514, 723 particular facts underlying existence allow make evaluation matter. informant's tip source information, recite "some informant concluded" relevant discovered, concluded informant, identity disclosed, 'credible' 'reliable.' " 114, 1514. independently Johnson 333 13-14, 68 367, 368-369, 92 436 (1948); Jones 362 257, 270-271, 80 725, 735-736, 697 (1960), unthinkable imposition authority contain deliber tely stand impeachment. 19 saying give cognizance competing values lead us impose limitations. They perhaps can best addressed noting arguments others allowing challenges. several: 20 rule, created Weeks 232 383, 341, 652 (1914), constitutional judicially remedy extended benefit deterrent promises outweigh societal cost use; declined apply seized testimony, Walder 347 62, 74 354, 503 (1954), grand proceeding, Calandra, 414 338, 94 613, 38 561 civil Janis, 428 433, 96 3021, 49 1046 (1976); similarly restricted application habeas corpus conviction. See Stone Powell, 465, 3037, 1067 (1976). applying situation—the deterrence untruthfulness affidavit—is justified many led above restrictions; order deter official misconduct burden too great society. 21 citizen's privacy interests adequately protected applicants submit magistrate's determination Applying attacks weed minimal number perjurious government statements, says respondent, overlap unnecessarily existing penalties perjury, prosecutions, departmental discipline misconduct, contempt court, actions. 22 Third, already equipped conduct fairly vigorous inquiry accuracy application. summon other persons proceeding. incremental gain post-search adversary said, great. Fourth, unwisely diminish solemnity moment reviewable regard veracity. less final, deference paid to, veracity, initiative use task. Denigration imprudent insofar scrutiny last preventing invasion happens. 24 Fifth, permitting issues confuse pressing innocence collateral drafting weight dockets, prevent diversion attention main innocence, militate added courts. And conducted routinely, misused defendants convenient discovery. Defendants revelation informants. Sixth finally, inappropriate large part control affiant. An n hearsay, fleeting observations, tips unnamed informants McCray Illinois, 386 300, 87 1056, 62 (1967). None considerations trivial. Indeed, them, announced scope, exclusion mandated, accorded. cited fully controlling weight; conclude justify absolute ban side balance, also, considerations: flat denude probable-cause all real meaning. "but affirmation," reduced nullity able deliberately falsified demonstrate having misled magistrate, remain confident ploy worthwhile. specter intentional falsification think, evoked widespread opposition nonimpeachment commentators,7 American Law Institute Model Code Pre-Arraignment Procedure, § SS290.3(1) (Prop. Off. Draft 1975), courts appeals, occasion, instance exposed confirmed without special either seeUnited rel. Petillo New Jersey, 400 1152, 1171-1172 (NJ vacated remanded sub nom. Albanese Yeager, 541 F.2d 275 (CA3 1976), cf. Upshaw, 448 1218, 1221-1222 (CA5 1971), cert. 405 934, 970, 30 810 (1972). bar re-examination cases. 27 always suffice discourage lawless misconduct. pre-search parte, tipped off lest destroy remove usual legal system proceedings itself indication likely vigorous. acquaintance contradict allegations. frequently marked haste, understandable act evidenc disappears; urgency permit examination witnesses. 28 alternative sanctions prosecution, administrative discipline, contempt, suit fill gap. implicitly rejected alternatives. Douglas concurrence Mapp, 670, 1699, quoted Wolf Colorado, 338 69 1359, 1369, 93 1782 (1949): 'Self-scrutiny lofty ideal, exaltation reaches heights expect District Attorney prosecute himself associates well-meaning violations clause during raid ordered.' 29 suitable falsity, warrant-issuing process. nature initial rather capacity, reason review. presently undue interference dignity Our reluctance extend instances disregard, broad field protection namely, merely negligent checking recording determination. possible misbehavior footless. presence jury. extraneous examined cause. Nor, sensible threshold required substantive maintained, large-scale commitment judicial resources; claims wash early stage, ones require resources vindication suggested truly effective. misuse purposes discovery obstruction. faced representations activities, decide, way predetermine, difficult reviewing once made. (1967), Court's disquisition area, Due Process expose demand, ample credible. 31 "new" extension really here. Despite deep skepticism Members wisdom extending areas, proceedings, questioned, absence efficacious sanction, continued deliberate. Brewer Williams, 430 387, 422, 97 1232, 1251, 51 423 (1977) (BURGER, C. J., dissenting); 538, 3072 (WHITE, dissenting). principled distinguishing between re-examination, integrity. IV 32 sum, repeat some embellishment beginning opinion: is, presumption validity respect proof. false; Affidavits furnished, satisfactorily explained. Allegations negligence innocent mistake insufficient. nongovernmental informant. required.8 hand, entitled, prevail 33 Delaware's occasion forward Franks. Since framing rules govern proffers left decline ourselves pass proffer. reversed, further inconsistent opinion. ordered. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT J. #7 35 IN MATTER OF: Franks, B/M, DOB: 10/9/54 222 S. Governors Ave., Apt. # 3, Delaware. room located South second floor, block building west Avenue, Between Loockerman Street North Street, City Dover. floor houses Wayman's Barber Shop. STATE DELAWARE) ss: COUNTY KENT ) 36 Be remembered 9th A. 1976 me John Green, Det. Dover Police Department duly depose say: 37 believe Apartment south Avenue Shop occupant now concealed property place, conveyance person occupants thereof, property, papers, articles, things instruments offense, commissio crime, designated commission reasonably calculated purpose possession unlawful, pertaining crime crimes specified therein undershirt; 3/4 jacket tie-belt; pair mens pants; colored hat; long thin bladed Articles, were, are, possessed Title Sub-Chapter D, Section 763, [see attached page]. 39 Wherefore, pray authorizing aforesaid St. manner provided 40 /s/ Affiant 41 42 SWORN (or affirmed) subscribed 1976. 43 [illegible] Green Ct 44 tending are: 45 1. Saturday, 2/28/76, L. W/F/15, reported kidnapped raped. 46 investigation complaint Boyce Failing Department. 47 3. Investigation aforementioned influence drugs, 48 4. residence B/M 10/9/54. 5. 2/2[8]/76, contact ______ 50 6. Thursday, 3/4/76 Department, committed Sexual Assault 7. 3/5/76, arrest Cpl. Misconduct. 52 8. 3/5/76 did, arrested charge Misconduct, ma[k]e concerning 53 Bailey, W/F/21 132 report raped night. 10. perpetrator unknown male, approximately 5'7", 150 lbs., complexion, wearing belt coat tie front, 55 11. Your state, forced threat death engage intercourse 56 12. entry gained through window east residence. 13. very short distance direct sight 14. male coincide 59 15. people. 60 jacket. 61 17. hat. 18. check records reveals 1971 subsequently convicted intent Rape. B 63 challenges include: 64 Alabama: McConnell State, Ala.App. 523, 65 526-528,266 So.2d 328,330-333 (Crim. App.), 289 Ala. 746, 266 66 334 67 Alaska: Davenport State. 515 P.2d 377, 380 (1973). Arizona: Payne, Ariz.App. 454, 70 456, 544 671, 673 71 Pike, 113 Ariz. 511, 513-514, 557 1068, 1070-1071 (1976) (en 72 banc). 73 Colorado: People Arnold, 186 Colo. 372, 377- 378, 527 806, 809 (1974) 75 Iowa: Boyd, 224 N.W.2d 609, 616 76 77 Louisiana: Melson, 284 873, 874- 875 (1973), limiting Anselmo, 260 La. 306, 313-322, 256 98, 101-104 (1971), 407 911, S.CT. 2438, 685 Massachusetts: Commonwealth Reynolds, 374 Mass. 142, 149 151, 370 N.E.2d 1375, 1379- 82 1380 83 Minnesota: Luciow, 308 Minn. 6, 10-13, 240 833, 837-838 85 Montana: Nanoff, 160 Mont. 344, 348, 502 1138, 1140 (1972), silentio overruling English, 343, 350, 229 727, 729, (1924). 88 Hampshire: Spero, 117 N.H. 199, 204- 205, 371 1155, 1158 (based Constitution). Pennsylvania: Hall, 451 Pa. 201, 91 204, 302 342, 344 Carolina: Sachs, 264 S.C. 541, 556,216 S.E.2d 501, 509 (1975). Vermont: Dupaw, 134 Vt. 451, 452-453, 95 365 967, 968 Washington: Lehman, Wash.App. 408, 414, 506 1316, 1321 (1973) (Div. 3); Goodlow, Wash. 535, 523 1204, 1206 99 1); Manly, 100 Wash.2d 120, 125, 530 101 309 banc), 855, 104, 102 103 Five statute, challenges: 104 California: Theodor Superior Cal.3d 105 77,90,100-101, Cal.Rptr.226, 235, 243,501 234, 243, 251 (1972)(en 106 banc); Cal.Penal Ann. 1538.5, 1539, 1540 (West 1970 107 Supp.1978). 108 York: Alfinito, N.Y.2d 181, 185-186, N.Y.S.2d 245, 211 109 644, 646 (1965); Slaughter, 596, 600, 116, 622, 624 110 (1975); N.Y.Code 111 813-c, 813-d, 813-e (McKinney Supp. 112 1970-1971), superseded N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law, Art. 710 114 1977-1978). 115 Oregon: Wright, Or. 163, 168-169, 116 n. 511 1223, 1225-1226, Or.Rev.Stat. 118 133.693 119 Utah: V. Bankhead, Utah 2d 135, 514 800, 802 (1973); 120 77-54-17, 77-54- 121 (1953). 122 Two doubtful, seem 123 Michigan: Burt, 236 Mich. 74, 210 124 N.W. 97, (1926). 125 Mexico: Baca, N.M. 513, 515, 505 126 856, 858 (dictum). 127 false, immaterial unintentional himself: 128 Florida: McDougall 316 624, 129 625 (Dist.Ct.App.1975). 130 Georgia: Ga. 213, 213- 214, 205 859, 860 (1974); Lee 131 239 769, 773-774, 238 852, 856 (1977); Birge 133 143 Ga.App. 632, 633, S.E. 395, 397 135 Indiana: Moore Ind.App. 381, 136 385-386, 307 92, 94-95 137 Grzesiowski 168 138 318, 328, 343 305, 312 139 Seager 200 Ind. 579, 140 582, 164 N.E. 274, (1928). 141 Ohio: Dodson, Ohio App.2d 31, 35-36, 332 371, 374-375 142 (1974). Wisconsin: Scott Wis.2d 504, 511- 144 512, 243 215, 219 145 Cf. Maine: Koucoules, Me., 146 860, 865 147 Eleven flatly prohibit 148 Arkansas: Liberto 248 Ark. 356-357, S.W.2d 464, 468 (1970) (alternative holding); Powell 540 1, 151 Connecticut: 169 Conn.322,327-329,363 152 76-77 153 Illinois: Bak, Ill.2d 140, 144-146, 258 343-344, 882, 117, 155 (1970); Stansberry, 156 544, 268 431, 404 157 121, (1971). 158 Kansas: Lamb, 209 Kan. 453, 467-468, 497 275, 287 (1972); Sanders, 189, 194-196, 563 461, 466-467 holding), 161 648, 499 162 163 Kentucky: Caslin Commonwealth, 491 832, 834 Maryland: Smith 191 Md. 329, 334-336, 287, 165 289-290 (1948), 336 925, 166 656, 1087 (1949); Tucker 244 167 488, 499-500, 111, 117-118 (1966), 1024, 1381, 463 (1967); Dawson Md.App. 694, 713-715, 276 170 680, 690-691 171 Mississippi: Wood 322 462, 465 172 Jersey: Petillo, N.J. 165, 173-179, 293 173 649, 653-656 410 945, 1393, 611 175 N.J., 178 N. A.2d, 656 176 Oklahoma: Brown 565 (Crim.App.1977), 177 McCaskey 534 1309,1311-1312 (Crim.App.1975), Henderson 490 179 786, 789 (Crim.App.1971), reaffirming Gaddis 180 447 (Crim.App.1968). 181 Tennessee: Owens 217 Tenn. 553, 507, 182 (1965): Poole Tenn.Cr.App. 53-54, 183 467 826, ibid. 184 Texas: Phenix 488 759, 765 (Crim.App.1972); 185 Oubre 542 875, 877 (Crim.App.1976). prohibited directed seemingly affidavits, 187 Missouri: Brugioni, 320 Mo. 202, 206, 262, 188 263 189 Rhode Island: Seymour, R.I. 260, 755, 756 190 (1924), partially overruled, LeBlanc, R.I 528-529, 471, 474 (1966); 192 Cofone, 760, 766-767, 315 752, 193 755-756 194 REHNQUIST, whom Chief joins, dissenting. 195 identifies factors result reaches, emphasizes attempting limit impeached. am persuaded, correct law thoroughly persuaded barriers believes erecting process frail indeed. 196 proposition prerequisite obviously correct. said: 197 "The grasped zealous officers, denies enforcement inferences men draw Its consists drawn detached instead judged competitive enterprise ferreting crime." 369. 198 notion incorrect course effort render different factfinding procedure known "it magistrate's] recklessly impeachment." Ante, 165. survives careful analysis. 199 urged fulfilled concludes Like countless tribunals, Even inaccurate gone making unless exalt ne plus ultra justice correctness along tortuous route filing indictment final obtained, lose perspective Much Harlan separate Mackey 401 667, 1160, relief likewise warrant: "At point, process, all, turn ought incarcerated otherwise, worth enforcing, provide definitive answer litigants else never provides all. Surely unpleasant task strip freedom institutional restraints. doing, halting tentative. No one, defendants, t system, society whole benefited providing tentatively jail today, tomorrow thereafter incarceration fresh litigation resolved. 201 "A fails take account finality subvert itself. seriously distort allocated While languish jail, uncommonly year, easy expending quantities energies judges, prosecutors, lawyers litigating convictions perfectly free final. [Citation omitted.] drain society's compounded writ compels wishes continue enforcing laws successful relitigate buried remote past presentation memories events dimmed. trying stale well, ironically, produce getting truth first." 690-691, 1179. 202 quite administered judges lawyers, is. equally improvement manifest change willingness, reflected almost callings except refrain constant relitigation, form attack, retrial, whatever, originally decided competent authority. 203 extraordinary troubling verdict guilt, later conclusively shown accused notwithstanding fact. reference "unthinkable imposition" horse color. Particularly view hurdles prosecution surmount retain light safeguards surround accused, essential understand role accused. impeachable has, hypothesis, turned up incriminating admissible bears conceivable harm done accused's nothing charged. 204 Given exposition 369, seems consistently adopt three positions impeachability satisfied Shadwick Tampa, 345, 2119, 783 (1958), concededly pursuant 4, nonetheless cause" reaffirmed Spinelli 393 410, 584, 637 decade stopping warrants, attack. conclusion flow inexorably think deal trained lawyer, Shadwick, supra, versed latest nuances Amendment. 206 rejection today. Magistrates monopoly determining appears telling truth. principally spent conducting petty offenses bit feel witness judge jurisdiction. 207 True, opportunity effects leading therefore, searching full-dress company somehow virtually guarantee seeking testimony. undoubtedly better vehicle arriving inquiry, scarcely Jackson concurring Allen, 443, 397, 469 (1953), purely Court: 208 "However, reversal higher done. super-Supreme proportion reversals reversed. infallible, infallible final." 540, 427. true judge's determinations magistrate; larger percentage findings objectively going percent. made, interest breached, wrongfully breached possibly restore interest. hypothesis served future. Without summarize discussed balance struck situations, Peltier, 422 531, 2313, (1975), simply game candle situation. As points out, jurisdictions divided, favor signed articles student notes refers there, trust, en bloc counting weighing. Presumably, reasoning commends questions, find opinions courts; commend piece containing weigh scales periodical devoted discussion questions. commendably, my opinion, surrounded relied numerous My fear, unjustified limitations quickly subverted actual practice. states: 212 "Nor, obstruction." 170. 213 greatly fear generalized afford natural tendency ingenious client's ceaselessly undermine offered sure sincere expressed hope doctrine adopts "any resources," end echo observation Jackson: 214 irresistibly comes mind most fitting precedent Julia who, according Byron's reports, 'whispering "I ne'er consent,"—consented.' Everson Board Education, 330 19, 711 (1947) (dissenting opinion). 215 "consent" dissent affirm reproduced Appendix Post, 172. references paragraphs page "James Williams" appear intended supervisor Center. 269. misapprehension until shortly prior Clerk Kent County Center," return summons, Sheriff "[s]erved summons Wil iams (Morrison)." actually name longer Compare Comment, Seton Hall L.Rev. 827, 844 (about half "slightly favor" challenges), Carolina Wrenn, 417 973, 3180, 1144 dissenting denial certiorari) (majority decisions affidavit). By count, 21, challenges; apparently rely statutory provisions holding. misstatement, misstatement unintentional, opining misrepresentation. outright. Another barred seemed 176. misplaced. Federal Courts Appeals rest footing. Belculfine, 508 58, 61, (CA1 1974); Dunnings, 425 836, 839-840 (CA2 1969), 1149, 412 Armocida, 29, (CA3), Gazal 858, Lee, 1205, 1208-1209 (CA4), 429 894, 255, Thomas, 489 664, 668, 671 1973), 844, 79, Luna, 525 (CA6 424 965, 1459, 732 Carmichael, 983, 988-989 (CA7 1973) Marihart, 492 897, 898 (CA8), 46, Damitz, 495 50, 54-56 (CA9 Harwood, 470 322, 324-325 (CA10 1972). Of Appeals, refrains Watts, U.S.App.D.C. 314, 317-318 1093, 1096-1097 Branch, 99, 2, 545 177, raise propriety court's refusal hear us. Opening Appellant, 259, (Del.Sup.Ct.). FBI Special Agent Moore, inaccuracies: double Samuel manager Brothers Meat Market, associated brother, Leo, meat business. second, af idavit confidential McCormick about brothers' association, Moore. first, Chicago Kelleher McCormick, relayed inform pursue discrepancy: deposition hospital postponement enable 533 characterizing raising integrity, premise insulate officer's relaying officer-affiant ignorant falsity. Mascolo, Impeaching Credibility Warrants: Piercing Presumption Validity, Conn.Bar 25-28 Kipperman, Inaccurate Ground Suppressing Evidence, Harv.L.Rev. 830-832 (1971); Grano, Dilemma Counsel: Spinelli-Harris Possibility Perjury, U.Ill.Law Forum 405, 456; Forkosh, Constitutional Right Challenge Content Issued Under St.L.J. 297, 308, 340 Sevilla, Exclusionary Rule San Diego 839, 869 Herman, Arrest Search: Facially Sufficient Affidavit, 721, 738-739, 750 Note, Buffalo 712, 716-717 Cornell L.Q. 822, 825-826 Ford.L.Rev. 740, 745 Colum.L.Rev. 1529, 1530-1531 U.C.L.A. 96, J.Crim.L., C.&P.S. 48, Drake 623, 638-639 859-860 conceded sustain irrelevant. 16-17.

Category: 0