United States v. Conant, No. 14-3201 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseWaynesville Office Weir sought a warrant to search the Conants’ house, stating that a reliable confidential informant had given information that Methamphetamine was being distributed from and stored at the house. Weir explained that the CI faced criminal charges and hoped to receive favorable consideration for cooperation, but there was no agreement. The prosecutor signed the application and did not tell Weir to include any additional information. The judge granted a warrant. The Conants moved to suppress evidence from the search and requested a Franks hearing. At a hearing, Weir testified that: the CI got the information from a second person while they used drugs together, and was subject to criminal charges at the time. A magistrate found no Franks violation because the officer did not act intentionally or recklessly to mislead the judge, and recommended denial of the suppression motion based on a good-faith analysis. The district court denied the motions to suppress. The Conants conditionally pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii). The Eighth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that a Franks hearing was, in effect, conducted when the officers involved were questioned at the evidentiary hearing, and the district court treated the evidentiary hearing as a Franks hearing.”
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Beam and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The misrepresentations in the police officer's affidavit in support of the search warrant application were negligent,rather than reckless and intentional, and Franks does not apply to negligent misrepresentations; since the magistrate judge did not clearly err in finding no knowing or reckless falsity here, the affidavit does not prevent application of the Leon good-faith analysis; as a result, the officers executed the warrants in good faith, and the evidence seized was admissible.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.