Abstract
In State v. Nielsen the Utah Supreme Court held that intentional but immaterial false statements in a police officer's search warrant affidavit do not render the warrant invalid under the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. The Utah court upheld a criminal conviction based on evidence obtained in a search of the defendant's residence despite the fact that a police officer lied to the magistrate in 'obtaining the warrant. The court based its ruling on an interpretation of Franks v. Delaware, in which the United States Supreme Court held that immaterial false statements in a search warrant affidavit did not invalidate the warrant. Although the facts in Nielsen present a difficult case in which to decide whether the false statements were "material," the decision is generally in accord with other cases that have addressed the issue.' Nielsen also raises an issue regarding police misconduct: whether the decision improperly condones or encourages police misconduct in obtaining search warrants.
Recommended Citation
Barneck, Matthew C.
(1987)
"State v. Nielsen: Immaterial False Statements inSearch Warrant Affidavits,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1987:
No.
3, Article 9.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1987/iss3/9