FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Pagano Law Wins Rare Franks Motion: Philadelphia Court Dismisses All Drug and Firearm Charges Before Trial
Court voids search warrant after police failed to disclose that key surveillance came from a remote crime camera, not in-person observation
PHILADELPHIA, PA –Pagano Law today announced that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas dismissed all drug distribution and firearm possession charges against its client. The Court granted the defense’s pretrial motion under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), a challenge to a search warrant that is rarely filed and even more rarely won.
The search warrant affidavits stated that narcotics officers “set up surveillance in the area of 2800 Hope Street.” At the preliminary hearing, the officer who swore out the warrant testified that she watched the alleged transactions in person from about 100 feet away. The defense later uncovered that police had used remote monitoring through a Real Time Crime Camera, a fact that appeared nowhere in the affidavit, the discovery, or the testimony. The recording was also not preserved.
“In a drug case, the officer’s surveillance is usually the whole case,” said Greg Pagano, Esq., of Pagano Law, who handled the motion. “A judge deciding whether to sign a warrant has a right to know how the police actually saw what they say they saw. When that information is left out, and the case depends on it, the warrant cannot stand.
The defense built its challenge in stages. Cross-examination at the preliminary hearing locked the officer into her account of in-person surveillance. A licensed private investigator, Kim Raiani, LPI, CCD, then documented the neighborhood, including a police pole camera at the corner of the block, very narrow streets, dense housing, and residents wary of strangers. Her report concluded that in-person surveillance there would be very difficult. The Commonwealth conceded those facts.
Because the undisclosed remote surveillance was necessary to establish probable cause, the Court voided the warrant, and all charges were dismissed before trial.
“Most defendants never get a Franks hearing, let alone win one,” said attorney Greg Pagano. This result came from doing the work: a careful cross-examination, a real investigation on the street, and holding the Commonwealth to the Constitution.”
About Pagano Law
Pagano Law (the Law Offices of Gregory J. Pagano, P.C.) is a Philadelphia law firm founded in 1995. The firm represents clients in criminal defense, personal injury, and civil rights matters from offices at 1315 Walnut Street in Center City Philadelphia and 11 E. Second Street in Media, Delaware County. Pagano Law has tried hundreds of jury trials in state and federal courts. Learn more at paganolaw.net or call (215) 636-0160.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is different.
Part 2: Case feature
Pagano Law Wins Rare Franks Motion: All Criminal Charges Dismissed Before Trial
Key takeaways
- Result: All drug distribution and firearm possession charges were dismissed before trial in September 2026 after the Court granted a Franks motion.
- The issue: Police swore in warrant affidavits that officers conducted surveillance at Hope and Cambria Streets in North Philadelphia. They did not disclose that the surveillance relied on a remote Real Time Crime Camera.
- Why it mattered: The surveillance was the basis for probable cause. Without it, the warrant could not stand, so the evidence from the search was excluded.
- How it was won: Preliminary hearing cross-examination, a licensed investigator’s field report that located a police pole camera, and a successful Franks hearing.
- Why it’s rare: Courts presume search warrant affidavits are valid. A defendant must clear two demanding hurdles just to get a hearing, and then prove the falsehood was deliberate or reckless.
What is a Franks motion?
A Franks motion asks a court to throw out a search warrant because the sworn affidavit behind it contains false statements. It comes from the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case Franks v. Delaware.
A judge or magistrate decides whether a warrant should be issued based on what the police put in the affidavit. As the Supreme Court explained, it would be “an unthinkable imposition upon his authority if a warrant affidavit, revealed after the fact to contain a deliberately or recklessly false statement, were to stand beyond impeachment.”
If the defense proves that the affiant included a false statement knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, and that the statement was necessary to the finding of probable cause, the warrant is voided and the evidence from the search is excluded.
Why Franks motions are so hard to win
Courts start with a presumption that a warrant affidavit is valid. To overcome it, the defense must clear two hurdles.
- Earning a hearing. The defense must make a “substantial preliminary showing.” That means pointing to the specific false statements in the affidavit, explaining why they are false, and backing that up with an offer of proof, such as sworn statements from witnesses. A wish to cross-examine the officer is not enough. Neither are claims of negligence or innocent mistake.
- Winning the hearing. The defense must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer made the false statement deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth. It must also show the statement was necessary to probable cause. If the affidavit still supports probable cause once the false material is set aside, the warrant survives.
Most Franks challenges fail at the first hurdle. Many defense attorneys never file one.
What happened in this case
The warrant. The search warrant affidavits repeatedly stated that “Members of Narcotics Field Unit 4B set up surveillance in the area of 2800 Hope Street (Hope and Cambria).” The plain meaning was that officers watched in person.
The preliminary hearing. On cross-examination, the affiant testified that she saw the alleged hand-to-hand transactions herself:
Q: Where were you making the observations of the alleged conduct?
A: On that day it was 2900 Hope Street probably.
. . .
Q: And then how far away approximately was my client from you, from your surveillance location, at that point?
A: Hundred feet maybe, if that.
That testimony set the stage. It committed the Commonwealth to a story of in-person surveillance.
The investigation. After discovery, the defense hired licensed private investigator Kim Raiani, LPI, CCDI, to visit and photograph Hope and Cambria Streets. She found and photographed a police pole camera at the corner of the block. Her report described very narrow streets, dense housing, parking on one side, and residents who are suspicious of strangers. Drawing on her own undercover surveillance experience, she concluded there was very limited ability to conduct in-person surveillance there. The Commonwealth conceded these facts.
What police didn’t disclose. The defense’s investigation showed that police used remote monitoring through Philadelphia’s Real Time Crime Camera system. That was never mentioned in the affidavit, the discovery, or the preliminary hearing testimony. The camera footage was also not preserved, which gave the defense a separate basis to seek dismissal.
The ruling. Probable cause depended entirely on what officers saw and how well they could see it. Because police did not disclose the remote surveillance, and because that surveillance was essential to probable cause, the Court granted the Franks motion and dismissed all charges before trial.
Why disclosure of camera surveillance matters
Watching a street corner on a monitor is different from watching it in person. Camera angle, distance, image quality, lighting, zoom, and blind spots all affect what an officer can reliably see. A judge reviewing a warrant, and a defense attorney testing it, need to know which kind of surveillance happened. When the affidavit hides that, the judge cannot fairly decide whether probable cause exists.
The lost footage made the problem worse. The only record of what the camera actually showed was gone.
What this means if you are facing drug or criminal charges
- Surveillance claims can be tested. In many Philadelphia drug cases, officer surveillance is most of the evidence. How, where, and from what distance it was done matters.
- The preliminary hearing is an opportunity. A careful cross-examination can lock in testimony that later becomes the foundation of a motion.
- Investigation wins cases. A visit to the scene found the pole camera that changed this case.
- Hire counsel early. Evidence such as camera footage can disappear. The sooner a defense attorney is involved, the sooner it can be requested and preserved.
If you or a loved one is facing drug or firearm charges in Philadelphia, Delaware County, or the surrounding area, call Pagano Law at (215) 636-0160
Frequently asked questions
What is a Franks hearing?
A Franks hearing is a court hearing where a defendant can challenge a search warrant by showing the police affidavit contained false statements, made deliberately or with reckless disregard for the truth, that were necessary to establish probable cause. If the defense succeeds, the warrant is voided and the evidence is excluded.
How do you get a Franks hearing in Pennsylvania?
The defense must make a substantial preliminary showing. That means identifying the specific false statements in the affidavit and supporting the challenge with an offer of proof, such as sworn witness statements. Claims of negligence or innocent mistake are not enough, and the false statements must be necessary to probable cause.
What happens if a Franks motion is granted?
The search warrant is voided and the evidence from the search is suppressed, as if probable cause had been missing from the start. When that evidence is central to the prosecution, as it often is in criminal cases, the charges may be dismissed.
Can police use crime cameras without saying so in a warrant?
Police may use camera surveillance, but they cannot mislead the judge about how they made their observations. In this case, affidavits that described surveillance as if done in person, without disclosing remote camera monitoring, led the Court to void the warrant.
Why are Franks motions rarely successful?
Courts presume warrant affidavits are valid. The defense must clear two hurdles: a detailed preliminary showing just to get a hearing, then proof that the officer acted deliberately or recklessly and that the false statement was essential to probable cause.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is different.
Charged with a crime? Call Pagano Law at (215) 636-0160.
