United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Dublin Division
K. EPPS UNI LED STALES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
have advised the Court that six pretrial motions have been
satisfied or otherwise resolved. (See doc. no. 58.)
Therefore, the following pending motions are
MOOT: doc. nos. 17, 32, 36, 38, 39, and 44.
Prior to setting down any of the referred but unresolved
motions for a hearing, the Court requires the following
the request to suppress Defendant's statements, (doc. no.
27), the motion does not comply with Local Criminal Rule 12.1
because it does not support all facts alleged with citations
to the existing record or supporting affidavits. For example,
Defendant claims the government “will introduce at
trial oral admissions, a written statement and/or tape
recordings of statements made to law enforcement officers
while in custody.” (Id. at 1.) Yet, he never
identifies any such admissions. Defendant also claims his
statements “were the result of persistent and repeated
interrogations by numerous skillful law enforcement
officers” without “an intelligent of knowing
waiver of counsel.” (Id.) Yet, he never
describes the circumstances of these alleged interrogations
or provides an affidavit in support of his allegations. Even
as to the few details provided concerning dates and names of
officers involved, Defendant fails to provide any evidentiary
Court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing simply
because a motion to suppress is filed. See United States
v. Cooper, 203 F.3d 1279, 1285 (11th Cir. 2000). The
burden is upon Defendant to allege facts that would, if
proven true, entitle him to relief. United States v.
Lewis, 40 F.3d 1325, 1332 (1st Cir. 1994). The Court
will provide Defendant until July 28, 2017, to particularize
his motion to suppress statements in compliance with Local
Criminal Rule 12.1. The government shall have until August
11, 2017, to file any supplemental response.
the request for a hearing pursuant to Franks v.
Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), regarding two search
warrants executed at 821 Plaza Drive on June 3, 2015 and June
10, 2015, respectively, (doc. no. 42), this motion also
requires further particularization. In Franks, the
Supreme Court held that facially valid search warrant
affidavits may be challenged if: (1) the affidavit contains
intentionally or recklessly false statements, and (2) the
statements are material in the sense that they were necessary
to the finding of probable cause. Id. at 171-72.
Although Franks makes clear that an affidavit
supporting an application for a search warrant is presumed to
be valid, id. at 171, the Supreme Court set forth
the following standard to obtain an evidentiary hearing to
challenge alleged misrepresentations in a warrant
To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's
attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by
more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be
allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard
for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by
an offer of proof. They should point out specifically the
portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false;
and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting
reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements
of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence
satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or
innocent mistake are insufficient. The deliberate falsity or
reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is
only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental
informant. Finally, if these requirements are met, and if,
when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or
reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains
sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a
finding of probable cause, no hearing is required.
Id. at 171-72 (footnote omitted).
motion in its current form does not provide sufficient
information to warrant a Franks hearing. For
example, Defendant fails to provide any evidentiary support
for his claims of “substantial bias and motive to
fabricate evidence” by Angela Hardy. (Doc. no. 42, p.
2.) Nor does he identify any untruthful information or
material omission related to the information provided by Ms.
Hardy. Likewise, Defendant's motion fails to provide any
record citations to support the assertion of “threats,
promises or agreements to withhold charges against [Miranda]
Warren” were made in exchange for her testimony. Nor
does it explain or provide evidentiary support for the
assertion concerning “the significance placed on the
information” Ms. Warren provided with respect to the
judicial officer's determination of probable cause.
absence of the requisite information, there is no basis for
convening an evidentiary hearing. The presumption of the
validity of the affidavit in support of the application for a
search warrant must be honored. Thus, Defendant shall have
until July 28, 2017, to supplement the motion for a
Franks hearing. The government shall have until
August 11, 2017, to file any supplemental response.
receipt of the supplemental information, the Court will
schedule oral argument and/or evidentiary hearings as