California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Lieng, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15, 119 Cal.Rptr.3d 200, 190 Cal.App.4th 1213, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 18 (Cal. App. 2010):
The hearing below on appellants' motion was bifurcated. It was agreed that first the parties would present evidence and argue whether the investigating law enforcement officer's observations at appellants' property, which led to the issuance of the search warrant, violated their Fourth Amendment rights. If the court were to conclude that their rights were not violated, then the parties intended to conduct a follow up hearing under Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667, to determine if there was sufficient evidence presented to the magistrate justifying issuance of the warrant, and if there were any material misrepresentations of fact presented to the magistrate by the applicant ( Franks motion).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.