MBE Rules · Criminal Procedure
Franks Challenges
Franks v. Delaware
The rule
A defendant who substantially shows a deliberate or reckless false statement in a warrant affidavit gets a hearing; if the remaining truthful content lacks probable cause, the warrant is voided and fruits suppressed.
In plain English
A Franks challenge allows a defendant to contest the validity of a search warrant if they can prove that the affidavit contained false statements made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. If the court finds that the remaining truthful information does not establish probable cause, the warrant is invalidated, and any evidence obtained as a result is excluded from trial.
Worked example
During a police investigation, an officer submitted an affidavit stating that a confidential informant saw drugs in a suspect's home. However, it was later revealed that the informant had never been to the home and the officer knew this. After a Franks hearing, the court determined that the affidavit contained a deliberate falsehood, and since the remaining facts did not support probable cause, the warrant was voided and the evidence was suppressed.
Memory hook
Franks: False statements can sink a warrant!
The trap
Exams often present scenarios where students must distinguish between mere negligence and intentional falsehoods, leading them to misapply the standard. Students might also overlook the requirement that the remaining truthful content must lack probable cause.
How examiners test it
Questions typically involve a fact pattern where a warrant's validity is challenged due to alleged false statements in the affidavit, requiring students to analyze the intent behind those statements and the sufficiency of the remaining evidence.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.