Statements In Warrant Application Sufficiently Vague to Avoid Franks Hearing

US v. Moody: Moody was convicted at trial of drug and firearm offenses. The evidence largely came from a search, pursuant to a warrant, of his home, where guns and drugs were found. After trial, Moody moved for a Franks hearing based on testimony the officer who procured the warrant gave during trial that contradicted the assertions made in the warrant. Specifically, Moody argued that the warrant application stated that he had been seen with drugs in his hand (leading up to a controlled buy), but the officer’s testimony at trial was that he did not. The district court denied the motion.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the statements in the warrant application were vague and subject to multiple interpretations, only one of which directly contradicted the officer’s trial testimony. As a result, Moody could not show that the statements in the warrant application