Franks v. Delaware
438 U.S. 154 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the veracity of a search warrant affidavit if they make a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement, and that the false statement was necessary to the finding of probable cause.
Facts:
- On March 5, 1976, Cynthia Bailey reported to Dover, Delaware police that she had been sexually assaulted by a man with a knife, and she provided a detailed description of his clothing.
- That same day, Jerome Franks was taken into custody for an unrelated assault.
- While awaiting a bail hearing, Franks allegedly made a statement to Officer Robert McClements, mentioning the name "Bailey," which McClements later relayed to detectives working on the Bailey case.
- Detectives Ronald Brooks and Larry Gray submitted a sworn affidavit to a Justice of the Peace to obtain a warrant to search Franks' apartment.
- The affidavit stated that the affiants had a "personal conversation" with two of Franks' coworkers, James Williams and Wesley Lucas.
- The affidavit claimed Williams stated that Franks' normal dress included a white thermal undershirt and a brown leather jacket, and Lucas stated Franks often wore a dark green knit hat, matching Bailey's description.
- Pursuant to the issued warrant, police searched Franks' apartment and found clothing matching the description and a knife.
Procedural Posture:
- Prior to trial in Delaware state court, Jerome Franks' counsel filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his apartment.
- At the suppression hearing, counsel orally challenged the veracity of the warrant affidavit, asserting that statements attributed to Franks' coworkers were false and made in bad faith.
- Counsel requested an evidentiary hearing and the right to call witnesses to prove the falsity.
- The trial court sustained the State's objection, refusing to permit Franks to challenge the affidavit's truthfulness and denying the motion to suppress.
- Franks was convicted at trial of rape, kidnaping, and burglary.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the conviction, holding that a defendant may under no circumstances challenge the veracity of a sworn statement used to procure a search warrant.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment entitle a defendant in a criminal proceeding to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the truthfulness of factual statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant, subsequent to the warrant's issuance?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Blackmun
Yes. The Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit either knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and the allegedly false statement was necessary for the finding of probable cause. The Warrant Clause's requirement of an "Oath or affirmation" presumes a truthful factual showing. To allow deliberately or recklessly false statements to stand beyond impeachment would reduce the probable cause requirement to a nullity and empower police to mislead magistrates without consequence. While there are competing values such as judicial finality, they are insufficient to justify an absolute ban on challenging the veracity of an affidavit. The ex parte nature of the warrant application process is not a sufficient safeguard against police misconduct, and alternative sanctions like perjury prosecutions are inadequate deterrents. Therefore, a limited right to a post-search evidentiary hearing is necessary to protect the integrity of the Fourth Amendment.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. A defendant should not be permitted to impeach a search warrant affidavit after a neutral magistrate has found probable cause and issued the warrant. The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement is fulfilled at the moment the magistrate makes the probable cause determination. Allowing subsequent challenges undermines the finality of judicial proceedings and diverts scarce judicial resources to issues collateral to the defendant's guilt or innocence. The privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment is breached once the search occurs and cannot be restored; suppressing relevant evidence serves only a deterrent purpose, and in this context, the societal costs of the 'game' are not 'worth the candle.' The limitations created by the majority are frail and will inevitably be subverted by defense attorneys, leading to a large-scale commitment of judicial resources without a corresponding benefit to the justice system.
Analysis:
This case establishes the procedural mechanism now known as a "Franks hearing," creating a limited but significant exception to the "four corners" rule, which typically confines review of a warrant's validity to the information presented in the affidavit itself. The decision strikes a balance between preventing police perjury in warrant applications and avoiding routine, burdensome challenges in every case. By setting a high threshold—requiring a substantial preliminary showing of intentional or reckless falsity material to probable cause—the Court sought to deter the most serious forms of police misconduct without opening the floodgates to frivolous claims. The ruling reinforces the magistrate's role as a check on law enforcement but acknowledges that the ex parte nature of the process requires a post-search backstop to ensure the integrity of the Fourth Amendment.
Unlock the full brief for Franks v. Delaware