Court Opinion

ID: 9843183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:30:00.760448+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:00.139494
License: Public Domain

COLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Although I concur in the majority’s opinion, I write separately to address the majority’s discussion of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). I do not believe that the district court’s thoughtful opinion misconstrued the holding of that case.
The majority states that the district court imputed the rationale of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) into the warrant process. I do agree with the majority’s discussion distinguishing the warrant process from the Brady protections arising from the trial process; however, I do not believe that the district court attempted to apply Brady to the warrant process.
The district court held that a genuine issue of material fact arose as to whether the rule established by the Supreme Court in Franks was violated by Detective Gabringer’s omission of information in the affidavit. Although I disagree with that holding — I believe that even with the addition of the omitted statements, probable cause existed as a matter of law — I do not read the district court’s statements as an attempt to redefine Franks.
As the majority states, under Franks, the inquiry does not continue if the court finds that the exclusion of the allegedly false statement (or in this ease, omission of material information) does not result in a lack of probable cause. I would thus hold that Detective Gabringer’s omission of the fact that he had attempted unsuccessfully to get Dr. Mays to write a prescription for him would not have resulted in a lack of probable cause.