Opinion ID: 2444929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scott's Second Claim

Text: Next, Scott claims that the police obtained a nighttime search warrant based on a false police affidavit, and that his counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the defective warrant. Specifically, Scott claims that the police knew that Kelly Oster did not reside at the searched apartment, even though the police affidavit stated otherwise. [27] This claim cannot succeed either. Under Franks v. Delaware , suppression is an appropriate remedy only if the false statement was included in the affidavit knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, and the false statement was necessary to the finding of probable cause. [28] Here, the Superior Court accepted the Commissioner's conclusion that the search warrant established probable cause regardless of whether Kelly Oster was a resident. Scott has not shown that the affidavit misstatement regarding Oster's residency was necessary to the finding of probable cause. Equally important, Scott's counsel did, in fact, move to suppress the evidence based on a lack of exigent circumstances for a nighttime search warrant. The trial court denied counsel's motion, and this Court affirmed on direct appeal. [29] Because Scott cannot succeed on either the deficient performance or the actual prejudice component of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion by denying that claim.