Franks v. Delaware

What Happened

In March 1976, Cynthia Bailey told Dover, Delaware police that a man had broken into her home and sexually assaulted her at knifepoint. She described her attacker’s clothing in detail: a white thermal undershirt, black pants with a silver or gold buckle, a brown leather three-quarter-length coat, and a dark knit cap pulled down around his eyes.

Jerome Franks was already in custody for a separate assault. While awaiting a bail hearing, he allegedly blurted out that he thought the hearing was “about Bailey” — a woman he claimed not to know — rather than about the other assault. Detectives Brooks and Gray used this statement and Bailey’s description to apply for a search warrant for Franks’s apartment.

The critical part of the affidavit: the detectives wrote that they had personally contacted “James Williams” and “Wesley Lucas” at Franks’s workplace, the Delaware Youth Center, and that these men confirmed Franks typically wore clothes matching the assailant’s description. But Franks’s defense counsel claimed that Lucas and the man the detectives actually meant (James Morrison, not Williams) would testify that neither had been personally interviewed by the detectives, and that any information they gave was “somewhat different” from what appeared in the affidavit. Counsel alleged the misstatements were made in “bad faith.”

The trial court refused to allow Franks to challenge the affidavit’s veracity — Delaware law at the time flatly prohibited any attack on a warrant affidavit’s truthfulness. The clothing and knife found in the search were admitted at trial, and Franks was convicted and sentenced to two consecutive 25-year terms plus life.

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court reversed in a 7-2 decision by Justice Blackmun. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires a hearing when a defendant makes a “substantial preliminary showing” that the affiant knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth included false statements in the warrant affidavit.

The framework is precise:

1. Threshold showing: The challenger must point out specifically the portion of the affidavit claimed to be false, with supporting reasons and an offer of proof (affidavits, sworn statements, or a satisfactory explanation of their absence). Conclusory allegations and a “mere desire to cross-examine” are insufficient. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake do not qualify.

2. Materiality test: Set the allegedly false material aside. If what remains still supports probable cause, no hearing is needed. If the remaining content is insufficient, a hearing is required.

3. At the hearing: If the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the false statement was included knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly — and the falsehood was necessary to probable cause — the warrant is voided and the fruits of the search are excluded.

What It Means in Practice

Franks is the foundation for challenging police dishonesty in warrant applications. In the § 1983 context, a Franks violation — an officer who deliberately lies in a warrant affidavit to manufacture probable cause — is a clear Fourth Amendment violation that can support both criminal suppression motions and civil rights claims.

The “reckless disregard” standard is particularly important — you don’t have to prove the officer knew the statement was false. Showing that the officer had obvious reasons to doubt the truthfulness of the statement, or should have known it was false but didn’t bother to check, is enough.

How You Can Use It

• Challenge a warrant based on police lies: File a Franks motion identifying the specific false statements, the evidence they’re false, and why removing them destroys probable cause.
• Key quote: “It would be an unthinkable imposition upon [the magistrate’s] authority if a warrant affidavit, revealed after the fact to contain a deliberately or recklessly false statement, were to stand beyond impeachment.” 438 U.S. at 165.
• In § 1983 litigation: If you were arrested or searched based on a warrant containing deliberate falsehoods, cite Franks for the constitutional violation. Template: “The warrant affidavit included material falsehoods made with reckless disregard for the truth. Under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), setting aside the false statements, the remaining content fails to establish probable cause.”

How It Can Be Used Against You

• High preliminary threshold: You need more than suspicion. The “substantial preliminary showing” requires specific identification of false statements with sworn or reliable supporting evidence. Conclusory attacks won’t get you a hearing.
• Only deliberate or reckless falsehoods: Negligent errors don’t count. The officer must have knowingly lied or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Defendants will characterize inaccuracies as innocent mistakes.
• Materiality: Even if you prove a falsehood, if the remaining affidavit content still establishes probable cause, the warrant stands. Defense will argue the false statements were “surplus” probable cause.
• Only the affiant’s falsehoods: Franks limits impeachment to falsehoods of the affiant officer, not of informants or other non-governmental sources.

How to counter: Build the preliminary showing carefully. Get sworn declarations from the people the affiant claims to have interviewed. Compare the affidavit’s claims with police reports, body camera footage, and dispatch records. If discrepancies are pervasive, argue reckless disregard rather than trying to prove deliberate intent.