Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Litchfield, Litchfield
(with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and
Walsh): Danaher, John A., J.
RULING RE DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR EVIDENTIARY
HEARING PURSUANT TO FRANKS V. DELAWARE, 436 U.S. 154
A. DANAHER, III J.
motion dated November 2, 2015, and by a second, virtually
identical motion filed on November 20, 2015, the
self-represented defendant, Andre White, moved for a "
Franks Hearing, " and sought an order " to
dismiss probable cause and dismiss the evidence that was
seized pursuant to the probable cause for the following
hereunder: 1) that the affidavit(s) in this case prepared and
served by the constable was knowingly and intentionally, or
with reckless disregard for the truth, made incomplete
statements, half truths, commissions, and dishonest innuendo
concerning items necessary for the finding of probable cause
for the issuance of the warrant." It is on the foregoing
basis that the defendant seeks an evidentiary hearing
pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
motion is denied.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
defendant challenges a search warrant affidavit signed on
July 30, 2013 and an arrest warrant affidavit signed on
August 12, 2013. The state objected to the motion by
memorandum filed on April 18, 2016. The matter came before
the court and was heard on April 29, 2016.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
defendant made several representations at oral argument in
support of his motion for a Franks hearing, and
supplemented his argument with an exhibit. Specifically, he
focused on paragraph 36 of the search warrant affidavit and
claimed that the following false entries appeared in that
affidavit: 1) " the approximated . . . amount of cash
that was taken"; 2) the allegation in the affidavit that
the defendant cashed stolen coins at a Stop and Shop store is
false because the defendant examined the surveillance video
and he contends that he does not appear on that video; 3) the
value of all items taken in the robbery " is the wrong
estimated price . . . according to my findings"; 4) the
allegation that a co-defendant " swiped a stolen credit
card is not the exact time that the surveillance showed in
the video footage."
defendant further argued that the same misrepresentations
appear in the arrest warrant, and in addition, paragraph 71
of that warrant is subject to challenge in that 1) the
allegation that two people are friends on Facebook, and that
they entered and exited a store, does not constitute probable
cause, and 2) the affiants were reckless in describing
co-defendant Henry Le's address as 29 Foot Path Lane
when, in fact, it was the defendant and not Henry Le who
lived at that address.
defendant supported his argument with " five [sic]
tangible pieces of evidence, " all of which were marked
as defendant's exhibit A. Those exhibits are: 1) three
reports showing that Henry Le resides at 29 Footpath Lane; 2)
an inventory of items seized following a search relative to
" Andre White, 29 Footpath Lane, 1st Floor, East
Hartford, CT"; a copy of page 8 of the July 30, 2013
search warrant affidavit which the defendant challenges; 3) a
copy of email traffic reflecting information about a "
denied credit card transaction, " apparently at a Stop
and Shop store, on April 8, 2013 at approximately 10:46 a.m.
for a credit card ending in 2561; and 4) a Coinstar receipt
from Stop and Shop, ...