| Franks v. Delaware | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued February 27, 1978 Decided June 26, 1978 |
||||||
| Full case name | Franks v. Delaware | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| Where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Blackmun, joined by Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Powell, Stevens | |||||
| Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Burger | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| 4th Amendment of the US Constitution | ||||||
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with defendants' rights to challenge evidence collected on the basis of a warrant granted on the basis of a false statement. The court held that where a warrant affidavit contains a statement, necessary to the finding of probable cause, that is demonstrated to be both false and included by an affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, the warrant is not valid.
Contents |
Cynthia Bailey was sexually assaulted and gave a description of her attacker to the police. On an unrelated count the police had picked up Jereome Franks for the sexual assault of a 15 year old girl. Franks made an incriminating comment saying he was "surprised" the charges were about the 15 year girl because he knew her and he had thought that the officer had said "bailey" and he did not know her.