|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by JENN WOOD
***
Federal prosecutors have asked U.S. district court judge Cameron McGowan Currie to deny former state lawmaker Robert John “RJ” May III‘s motion to suppress evidence and obtain a Franks hearing – arguing the disgraced politician has failed to meet the high bar required to challenge a search warrant.
May was arrested and charged in June with ten counts of distributing child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Federal prosecutors in the office of U.S. attorney Bryan Stirling have accused him of distributing more than 220 child pornography videos over a five-day span in late March and early April 2024.
May is representing himself on these charges. Earlier this month, Currie granted his request to serve as his own counsel following a Faretta hearing – which confirmed he understood the risks of going it alone. Although standby counsel has been appointed to assist May — a political consultant with no legal training — he has taken on the responsibility of drafting and filing his own motions from the Edgefield County Detention Center.
His suppression bid and request for a Franks hearing are among the first major tests of his ability to navigate federal criminal procedure on his own.
A Franks hearing is granted by federal courts if a defendant makes a preliminary showing that search warrant affidavits used to obtain evidence against them contained “false statements” central to the determination of probable cause.
***
RELATED | RJ MAY PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS
***
In a 17-page response (.pdf) filed on September 22, 2025, the government flatly rejected May’s claims that Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) special agent Britton Lorenzen misled a magistrate in the affidavit used to effectuate the August 2024 search of his home and electronic devices. Prosecutors argued May has offered “no facts — only conclusory allegations” in the hope of demonstrating intentional falsehoods, reckless disregard for the truth or omissions material to the magistrate’s finding of probable cause.
The government maintained May’s argument rests on a mischaracterization of Lorenzen’s testimony. At issue is her affidavit statement that collectors of child pornography “rarely, if ever, dispose” of their material — contrasted with her detention hearing testimony that it is “very, very common” for search warrants to yield no CSAM artifacts.
According to prosecutors, there is no contradiction in Lorenzon’s statements. Paragraph 9(e) of Lorenzen’s affidavit was described as a “broad summary of her 20-year experience investigating CSAM offenses” — not a factual misstatement. Any imprecision in her later testimony, the filing added, came in response to a single question at the end of 53 pages of testimony – and could not reasonably support a finding of intent to mislead.
“An innocent or even negligent mistake by the officer will not suffice,” prosecutors wrote, citing United States v. Moody.
***
***
Prosecutors also argued that even if paragraph 9(e) were stricken from Lorenzen’s affidavit, probable cause would still stand. Under Franks, a defendant must show that the alleged false statement was material to the magistrate’s finding. Here, they said, the warrant included ample evidence — including May’s Kik activity, IP address traces, and account records — that independently supported probable cause.
“The removal of paragraph 9(e) neither diminishes a finding of probable cause, nor renders the information stale,” the government wrote.
The federal response also targeted May’s claim that Lorenzen intentionally omitted information from her affidavit. May alleged the affidavit should have included testimony that it was “very, very common” for searches of homes, devices, or cloud accounts to yield no CSAM. But prosecutors called this a “manufactured mischaracterization” of Lorenzen’s testimony, emphasizing she consistently drew a distinction between content stored locally and content stored in third-party platforms like Kik.
***
Even if such testimony had been added, they argued, it would still not defeat probable cause under controlling precedent. Courts must insert the allegedly omitted material into the affidavit and reassess probable cause — and, prosecutors said, the affidavit would still support the search.
“The defendant has failed to make a substantial preliminary showing” of either false statements or intentional omissions, the government concluded, insisting May’s request for a Franks hearing should be denied.
Judge Currie is scheduled to hear arguments on all pending motions — including the suppression dispute — at a pre-trial hearing on September 24, 2025.
For now, May remains confined to the Edgefield County Detention Center awaiting jury selection, which is scheduled to begin October 8, 2025. His trial is set to start the following day.
***
THE MOTION…
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
As a private investigator turned journalist, Jenn Wood brings a unique skill set to FITSNews as its research director. Known for her meticulous sourcing and victim-centered approach, she helps shape the newsroom’s most complex investigative stories while producing the FITSFiles and Cheer Incorporated podcasts. Jenn lives in South Carolina with her family, where her work continues to spotlight truth, accountability, and justice.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
1 comment
I finally found a minute to read the charging documents against May and Gosnell and now I wish I hadn’t. The level of depravity is just mind blowing. There isn’t a legal punishment appropriate for these guys if the charges are proven but the prison system seems to make up for the lack of remedies civilized society has at its disposal.