UT · jury_instructions
MUJI 2d CV1319
Validity of Search Warrant Application.
In this case, [name of plaintiff] claims that, even though the search was based on a search warrant, the search was nonetheless unconstitutional. In order to prevail on this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
1) at the time of the search warrant application, [name of defendant officer(s)] knowingly, intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth omitted information from or included false statements in the application, and
2) the information, if accurately included, would have changed the magistrate's decision to issue the warrant.
Provenance
- Source
- legacy.utcourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-22
- Edition
- 2026-08-21
- Content hash
cb5355fab40ac6beda20f63fb80b219b7131e12bd11ab75a01c0e6fac9b5f900
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.