When law enforcement officers apply for a search warrant, they submit an affidavit to a judge explaining why they believe evidence of a crime will be found at a particular location. But what happens when the officer leaves out information that could undermine the case for probable cause? That question is at the heart of a Franks challenge—and in United States v. Glass, No. 24-4193 (4th Cir. Dec. 2, 2025), the Fourth Circuit made clear just how difficult it is for defendants to win one.
The Case: Allegations, Omissions, and a Suppression Motion
In Glass, a detective obtained two search warrants—one for the defendant’s home and another for his electronics—based largely on his estranged wife’s report that she had seen child sexual abuse material on his phone. The wife provided detailed, graphic descriptions of the images she claimed to have seen and gave officers specific information about the defendant’s devices and online accounts.
The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the detective recklessly omitted several facts from the affidavit that would have undermined his wife’s credibility. These omissions included: a prior investigation based on the wife’s allegations that closed as “unfounded” after no evidence was found; the fact that an earlier investigation also originated from the wife and ended without charges; the wife’s status as the defendant’s estranged spouse who had ongoing disputes with him; and the wife’s pending shoplifting charge and a separate larceny investigation.
The district court held a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and denied the motion. The Fourth Circuit affirmed.
The Franks Standard and Why Omissions Are Especially Hard to Challenge
Under Franks, a defendant can challenge a search warrant by showing that the affiant included false statements—or omitted material facts—deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth. If the corrected affidavit would not support probable cause, the evidence must be suppressed. But the Fourth Circuit has long held that omission-based Franks challenges carry “an even higher evidentiary burden” than challenges based on affirmative misstatements. As the court noted, quoting its prior decision in Colkley, an affiant “cannot be expected to include in an affidavit every piece of information gathered in the course of an investigation.”
In Glass, the court analyzed each omission and found none of them—individually or collectively—would have defeated probable cause. The prior “unfounded” investigation simply meant officers hadn’t found evidence at the time, not that the allegations were false. The lack of charges from an earlier investigation could reflect prosecutorial priorities rather than witness dishonesty. The marital relationship could be reasonably inferred from the affidavit itself. And the shoplifting charges, while involving “dishonesty of a certain kind,” did not suggest the wife would fabricate allegations of an entirely different and far more serious nature.
What This Means for Federal Defendants
The Glass decision is a reminder that the Fourth Circuit gives substantial deference to law enforcement’s warrant process. The court emphasized the Supreme Court’s “strong preference for warrants” and cautioned against “nitpicking warrant affidavits with clarity afforded only by hindsight.” For defendants facing federal criminal charges, this means a Franks challenge is an uphill battle—but not an impossible one.
Several practical takeaways emerge from this opinion. First, the specificity and detail of the informant’s allegations matter enormously. Here, the wife’s graphic, in-person descriptions of the images she claimed to have seen carried great weight. Second, corroborating factors like prior investigations into the defendant—even ones that didn’t result in charges—can actually strengthen the government’s case. Third, courts will view an informant’s criminal history as less damaging to credibility when the informant’s charges are unrelated to the type of offense being reported.
For anyone facing charges related to child exploitation material, understanding how courts evaluate search warrant challenges is critical. A Franks hearing remains one of the most important pretrial tools available, but success requires demonstrating not just that something was omitted, but that the omission was reckless and that its inclusion would have negated probable cause entirely.
Contact a Board Certified Criminal Defense Attorney
At The Chetson Firm, attorney Damon Chetson is a Board Certified Specialist in Federal and State Criminal Law—one of fewer than 100 attorneys in North Carolina to hold that distinction. If you are facing federal charges and believe your Fourth Amendment rights were violated during a search, we can evaluate whether a Franks challenge or other suppression motion is appropriate in your case. Contact us today for a consultation.