The sworn paper a Franks hearing often requires first

Police searched a Bradenton, Florida home and a rented storage unit under warrants. On November 5, 2026, in a published opinion, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Andre Adams Jr.'s convictions and a 228-month prison sentence in United States v. Adams, Jr., No. 24-14034. The panel held he failed a threshold step for a Franks hearing on the residence warrant, so the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying that hearing and keeping the evidence. Read the decision (PDF).

What happened

A Middle District of Florida grand jury indicted Adams on three counts. The court listed them as possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i), and felon possession under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8).

Before trial, Adams moved to suppress evidence from the home and the storage unit. He argued the warrant affidavit for the home omitted material facts because the detective did not say a pill bottle recovered during a trash pull bore another person's name. He asked for a Franks hearing on whether that omission was knowing or reckless, citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171–72 (1978). He also asked to suppress storage-unit evidence as fruit of the poisoned tree when the first warrant failed.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion. The recommendation said Adams supplied no affidavit or sworn statement alleging the detective knowingly or recklessly misrepresented or omitted facts in the warrant affidavit, as Franks requires. It also said that because the home search was lawful, the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree argument did not reach the storage unit. The district court adopted that recommendation over Adams's objection.

A jury convicted Adams on all counts. The district court sentenced him to 228 months of imprisonment.

The Franks rule and the preliminary showing

The Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires a warrant before a search. In practice, officers submit an affidavit so a judge can find probable cause. Franks allows a person charged with a crime to challenge knowing or reckless misrepresentations or omissions in that affidavit, 438 U.S. at 171–72.

When a defendant makes a preliminary showing of fabrication, the Supreme Court in Franks described a hearing at which the district court tests the warrant. The Eleventh Circuit in Adams quoted its own formulation of what must come first: a defendant must submit an "affidavit or otherwise sworn statement alleging that [the officer] knowingly or recklessly included false statements in the search warrant affidavit" or "satisfactorily explain[]" the absence of that sworn paper. It cited United States v. Arbolaez, 450 F.3d 1283, 1294 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation modified), for that requirement.

What the Eleventh Circuit decided

The Franks hearing threshold was not met. The Adams panel agreed with the district court that Adams did not submit the sworn allegations Franks describes with his suppression motion, and did not explain why not. On appeal, the brief did not address that ground. The court cited Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014), for the rule that when an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal a ground the district court relied on, that challenge is abandoned and the judgment is affirmed.

The storage-unit warrant stood. Adams argued the storage warrant rested on evidence from the home search, so an invalid home search poisoned the second warrant. The panel answered with Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 571–72 (1987): evidence cannot be fruit of the poisonous tree if the tree is not poisonous. Because the home search was lawful, the storage challenge failed.

The court reviewed the Franks ruling for abuse of discretion, citing United States v. Goldstein, 989 F.3d 1178, 1197 (11th Cir. 2021).

The opinion also affirmed on evidentiary issues, a judgment-of-acquittal motion, a requested jury instruction, and substantive reasonableness of the sentence. This post focuses on the Franks threshold and related suppression ruling.

What it means in a federal case

• A Franks hearing is not automatic. Adams applies the Eleventh Circuit rule that a defendant must put sworn allegations of knowing or reckless falsity in the warrant papers—or explain why that sworn submission is missing—before a court must hold the hearing Franks describes.
• Appeals track the district court's reasoning. If the district court denies relief partly because a procedural requirement was not satisfied, the brief on appeal needs to address that ground or risk abandonment under Sapuppo.
• Fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree needs a Fourth Amendment violation first. When the first search is lawful, later warrants that build on what it lawfully uncovered are not invalidated on that basis alone.
• The decision applies in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia as binding Eleventh Circuit precedent.

Our guide to a motion to suppress and appeals in the Eleventh Circuit explain how warrant challenges move through the district court and the court of appeals.