# Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)

**Source:** https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/154
**Retrieved:** May 25, 2026

---

## Holding

Where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request.

## Key Rules

1. **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. The allegation of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard must point out specifically with supporting reasons the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false. It also must be accompanied by an offer of proof, including affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses, or a satisfactory explanation of their absence.

2. **Materiality test:** 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. But if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled to a hearing.

3. **Remedy:** If after a hearing the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the false statement was included knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, and the false statement was necessary to probable cause, then the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded.

## Key Quote

> "[W]hen the Fourth Amendment demands a factual showing sufficient to comprise 'probable cause,' the obvious assumption is that there will be a truthful showing."

## Important Limitation

Probable cause "may be founded upon hearsay and upon information received from informants." The affidavit need not be "truthful" in the sense that every fact is correct, but "truthful in the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true."

The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard "is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant."

## Application to This Case

The Franks argument in this case focuses on **material omissions** and **uncorroborated hearsay**:

- **Original claim (needs revision):** That the affidavit omitted the victim's unconscious state
- **Revised claim (based on warrant review):** The affidavit DID disclose intubation (per ANALYSIS.md review of warrant screenshots). The Franks argument should now focus on:
  - Whether the affiant (Det. Inman) recklessly included uncorroborated third-party hearsay from biased sources (ex-boyfriend, siblings) without independent verification
  - Whether the 2020 reference was properly verified before inclusion
  - Whether the affidavit contained any material misrepresentations about witness credibility or reliability