- 01.
Not boilerplate: the Franks v. Delaware controlling authority is source-linked to the opinion, so you verify it is still good law before you move for the hearing. Franks requires a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant knowingly or recklessly included a false statement material to probable cause.
- 02.
Material omissions are equally challengeable, a technically true affidavit that omits exculpatory context can be a Franks violation.
- 03.
Cross-exam at the Franks hearing targets the affiant's source, the corroboration timeline, and the CI's reliability record.
The controlling authority this template is built on.
Before you buy, see the spine of the deliverable. Verbatim quotes are reproduced word for word from the opinion they cite; any attributed summary is labelled as a summary, never dressed up as a quote. Each entry links to its source so you can confirm it yourself. Nothing is paraphrased into a citation it does not support.
- Lead controlling authorityVerbatim quote
“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.”
- Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“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. On the other hand, if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to his hearing.”
- Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.”
Provenance: every citation above carries a source URL that was fetched and confirmed reachable when the template was authored. A citation without a working source URL does not ship. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to circuit-specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.
Order intake.
Frequently asked questions.
What does the template contain?
Eight sections: cover (your case identifier + jurisdiction stamped on), scope of motion (constitutional / statutory ground and the doctrine the court must apply), lead controlling authority (verbatim finding + source URL), 2-4 supporting authorities with source URLs, pre-drafted motion language (~250 words editable), reply-brief framework (anticipates the government's expected response), 8-12 cross-examination questions for the testifying officer, and the methods + source URLs bibliography.
Is this legal advice?
No. The template is a research artifact modeled on controlling Fourth Amendment doctrine for this motion type. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to the circuit's specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.
How fast is delivery?
Stripe checkout completes in seconds; the PDF is emailed to the address you provide. Templates are pre-built, there is no per-case data pipeline running.
Do you cite anything I cannot independently verify?
No. Every citation in every template carries a source URL. Lead authorities are United States Supreme Court opinions. Supporting authorities are binding circuit precedent, all linked to CourtListener or official government sources. A citation without a working source URL does not ship.
Refund policy?
7-day full refund, no questions asked.