[Cite as State v. Kilbarger , 2013-Ohio-2577.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 25584 Plaintiff-Appellee : : Trial Court Ca se No. 2010-CR-3114/2 v. : : A. J. KILBARGER, JR. : (Criminal Appeal from : ( Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellant : :

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 21st day of June, 2013.

. . . . . . . . . . . MATHIAS H. HECK, JR., by APRIL F. CAMPBELL, Atty. Reg. #0089541, Montgomery County Prosecutor’s Office, Appe llate Division, Montgomery County Courts Building, P.O. Box 972, 301 West Third Street, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee BRYAN K. PENICK, Atty. Reg. #0071489, Penick & Deters, 1800 Lyons Road, Dayton, Ohio 45458 Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

. . . . . . . . . . . . . HALL, J., {¶ 1} A.J. Kilbarger appeals from his convic tion and sentence on charges of possessingcocaine and marijuana. {¶ 2} Kilbarger advances two assignments of error on appeal. First, he contends the trial court erred in de nying his pre-trial suppression motion on the basis that a search-warrant affidavit containes false or misleading statem ents or material omissions in violation of Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) . Second, he claims the trial court erred in finding that the affidavit estab lished probable cause for a search warrant. {¶ 3} The record reflects that Kilbarger was indicted on the above charges as well as drug trafficking and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. The evidence against him was obtained through execution of a s earch warrant at his home. Agent Charlie Stiegelmeyer of the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation obtained the warrant by presenting the issuing judge with a probable-cause affidavit. Following his indic tment, Kilbarger moved to suppress the evidence. He argued that Stiegelmeyer’s affidavit contained false or misleading statements or material omissions in violation of Franks . He also asserted that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause even absent a Franks violation. {¶ 4} The trial court held a December 2, 2011 hearing on the Franks issue. At the conclusion of the hearing, it held that Kilbarger had “failed to make a preliminary showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the affiant, with an intent to mislead, either excluded crucial information from the affidavit or provided false or misleading information in the affidavit.” ( Franks Tr. at 109). Therefore, the trial court found no viable Franks issue and overruled that portion of the suppression motion. (Doc. #112). It separately concluded that Stiegelmeyer’s affidavit established probable cause for a sear ch warrant and overruled the remainder of the suppression motion. (Doc. #121). Th e trial court later denied reconsideration of its Franks ruling. (Doc. #138, 141). At trial, a jury acquitted Kilbarger on the drug-t rafficking and corrupt-activity 3

 charges but found him guilty of possessing cocaine and marijuana. The tria l court imposed an aggregate two-year prison sentence. (Doc. #219). This appeal followed. {¶ 5} As a means of analysis, we turn first to Kilbarger’s second assignment of error. There he contends the trial court erred in finding that Stiegelmeyer’s affidavit justified the issuance of a warrant to search his residence for drugs. 1 Kilbarger asserts (1) that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause and (2) that any information rela ted to the presence of drugs in his house was stale. {¶ 6} “In determining the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant, ‘[t]he task of the i ssuing magistrate is simp ly to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, give n all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledg e” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’” State v. George , 45 Ohio St.3d 325, 544 N.E.2d 640 ( 1989), paragraph one of the syllabus, quoting Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 238-239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).

1 For purposes of his second assignment of error, Kilbarger ignores the alleged Franks violation. Even considering Stiegelmeyer’s entire affidavit, he argues that it falls short of supporting the issuance of a warrant. We will address this argument first be cause the alleged Franks violation is moot if Kilbarger is correct. {¶ 7} “In reviewing the sufficiency of probable cause in an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant issued by a magistra te, neither a trial court nor an appellate court should substitute its judgment for that of the ma gistrate by conducting a de novo determination as to whether the affidavit contai ns sufficient probable cause upon wh ich that court would issue the search warrant.” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. “Rat her, the duty of a reviewing court is 4

 simply to ensure that the magistrate had a subs tantial basis for concludi ng that probable cause existed. In conducting any after-the -fact scrutiny of an affidavit submitted in support of a search warrant, trial and a ppellate courts should accord great defere nce to the magistra te’s determination of probable cause, and doubtful or marginal cases in this area should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant.” Id. {¶ 8} With the foregoing standards in mind, we hold that the issuing judge had a substantial basis for finding probable cause to believe drugs would be found inside Kilbarger’s home at 508 West Sherry Street in Trotwood. In his June 21, 2010 affidavit, Stiegelmeyer recited his nearly three decades of law-enforcement ex perience, including fourteen years performing narcotics investigations. (Stiegelmeyer affidavit at ¶1). He th en averred that in October 2009 he received information from a confidential informant (“CI”) regarding the drug-trafficking activities of McCartney and Kilbarger. ( Id . at ¶2). The CI advise d him that McCartney and Kilbarger “are large cocaine and marijuana tr affickers operating in the Montgomery County area.” ( Id . at ¶3). The CI stated that McCartney led the operation and that Kilbarger helped distribute the drugs. ( Id .). The CI also told Stiegelmeyer th at McCartney “uses property owned by Kilbarger and others to conceal asse ts and narcotics from authorities.” ( Id .). According to the affidavit, the CI “has been proven credible and reliable by making controlled purchases of narcotics” and by “providing information, which was later ve rified to be true through independent investigative methods by Affiant.” ( Id . at ¶2). {¶ 9} Stiegelmeyer described an October 2009 controlled buy during which he worked undercover with the CI and purchased a pound of marijuana from McCartney. ( Id . at ¶5). He recounted a similar incident in April 2010 where the CI participated in a controlled buy and 5

 purchased an ounce of cocaine from McCartney. ( Id . at ¶6). Although these drug buys involved McCartney rather than Kilbarge r, they nevertheless helped es tablish the CI’s veracity. {¶ 10} Thereafter, in May 2010, the CI advise d Stiegelmeyer that Kilbarger owned a home at 508 West Sherry Street. The CI “stated th at McCartney and Kilbarger use this residence to store narcotics and c ontraband and the CI has been to this residence in the past to purchase narcotics from McCartney and Kilbarger.” ( Id . at ¶7). On appeal, Kilbarger correctly points out the CI’s failure to specify when he had purchased drugs at 508 West Sherry Street. We note, however, that Stiegelmeyer’s rendition of what th e CI said was in the present tense in May 2010 when informing Stiegelmeyer that McCartney and Kilbarger “use this residence to store narcotics[.]” {¶ 11} Stiegelmeyer also recounted an incident in May 2010 when the CI arranged to purchase two ounces of cocaine from McCartney. Prior to the transaction, agents established surveillance of McCartney’s residence and Kilbarger’s residence. ( Id . at ¶8). The agents watched Kilbarger arrive at McCartney’ s residence and hand McCartney a white paper bag. Agents saw McCartney then leave and meet the CI. According to the affidavit, McCartney was observed handing the CI the same white pa per bag, which agents later di scovered contained two ounces of cocaine. ( Id .). This transaction helped establish the CI’s veracity and ba sis of knowledge with regard to Kilbarger’s participation in drug-trafficking activities. {¶ 12} Stiegelmeyer also descri bed apparent drug activity involving McCartney and Kilbarger that occurred in June 2010. On that occas ion, he directed the CI to purchase two ounces of cocaine from McCartney. ( Id . at ¶11). As they had done be fore, agents first established surveillance of McCartney’s residence and Kilbarger’s residence. They watched McCartney 6

 arrive at Kilbarger’s home, enter, and leave a short time later. McCartney returned to his own home, where he stayed briefly before leaving to meet the CI. Agents observed McCartney hand the CI a baggie of cocaine and then return to his home. Kilbarger arrived at McCartney’s residence soon thereafter. He met briefly with McCartney and then returned to his home, where he stayed for a short time before leaving again. ( Id .). Addressing the fo regoing movements of McCartney and Kilbarger, Stiege lmeyer opined that “through his training and experience this pattern reflects patterns used by narcotics organizations wh en distributing narcotics and transporting money after the sale of narcotics.” ( Id .). {¶ 13} Finally, Stiegelmeyer’s affidavit contained the following summation: Affiant is a trained narcotics inves tigator with over 27 years [of] law enforcement experience with the last 14 years being dedicated to investigating narcotics offenses. Your Affiant has obt ained information from a proven credible and reliable informant that Robert McCa rtney and A.J. Kilbarger are operating a large scale marijuana and cocaine distri bution organization which operates in the Montgomery County, Ohio area. Affi ant has independently corroborated information supplied by the confidential informant through other investigative methods and has made unde rcover and controlled purch ases of marijuana and cocaine from McCartney and Kilbarger to support these claims. Affiant submits that the mention[ed] addresses are presently being used to facilitate drug trafficking or are being used to conceal narcotics, contraband, or assets obtained from the sale of narcotics from authorities and requests permission from the court to search these mentioned areas for evidence of the crimes listed. 7

 ( Id . at ¶18). 2 {¶ 14} In our view, Stiegelmeyer’s affidav it provided the issuing judge with a substantial basis for finding probable cause to believe drugs would be found inside Kilbarger’s home. Beginning in October 2009, the CI informed Stiegelmeyer that Mc Cartney and Kilbarger were large-scale drug traffickers. Thereafter, in October 2009 and April 2010, the CI purchased marijuana and cocaine from McCartney. In May 2010, approximately one month before the warrant was obtained, the CI advised Stiegelmeyer that McCartney and Kilbarger “use” Kilbarger’s residence at 508 West Sherry Str eet to store drugs. Also in May 2010, again approximately one month befo re the warrant was obtained, agents saw Kilbarger hand McCartney a white paper bag th at was found to contain two ounces of cocaine. In June 2010, the same month the warrant was obtained, agents watched as McCartney and Kilbarger engaged in a pattern of travel that Stiegelmeyer reasonably inferred was indicative of drugs being transported from Kilbarger’s home for sale by McCa rtney to the CI and dr ug money subsequently being deposited at Kilbarger’s home.

2 For purposes of our analysis, we have focused primarily on the portions of Stiegelmeyer’s affidavit relevant to drug activity involving Kilbarger and the presence of drug s at his residence. Because the affidavit was used to obtain search warrants for mu ltiple locations, it also contains information about other addresses and vehicles where Stiegelmeyer believed drugs would be found. We have not d iscussed those averments, however, given that Kilbarger is challenging only the warrant to search his home. {¶ 15} . Based on our review of Stiegelmeyer’s affidavit, we believe it adequately established the CI’s veracity and basis of knowledge. The a ffidavit also reflected that Stiegelmeyer and other agents witnessed known and a pparent drug activity involving both McCartney and Kilbarger shortly be fore the warrant was obtained. As for the presence of drugs in Kilbarger’s home, the CI stated that McCartney and Kilbarger were large-scale drug traffickers 8

 and that he previously had purchased drugs from 508 West Sherry Street. Significantly, he identified 508 West Sherry Street in May 2010 as a location McCartney and Kilbarger “use” to store drugs. Moreover, Kilbarger’s travel patte rn on the day of the June 2010 controlled buy supports a reasonable inference that he obtained cocaine from 508 West Sherry Street for McCartney to sell to the CI. Viewed together, the foregoing facts reasonably support a finding that probable cause to search 508 West Sh erry Street existed on June 21, 2010, when Stiegelmeyer sought a warrant, and that the information in the affidavit regarding Kilbarger’s residence was not impermissibly stale. At a minimum, the issuing judge had a “substantial basis” for finding a “fair probability” that drugs w ould be found inside 508 West Sherry Street. George , 45 Ohio St.3d at 330. Accordingly, the s econd assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 16} We turn now to the first assignment of error. There Kilbarger contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to s uppress the evidence against him based on a Franks violation. He advances three argu ments in support, First, he cla ims the trial c ourt should have granted him a “full hearing” on the Franks issue. Second, he asserts that he presented enough evidence at the “initial hearing” to establish a Franks violation even without a full hearing. Third, he maintains that the trial court erred in denying a motion for reconsideration he filed after the hearing. {¶ 17} “Pursuant to Franks , a search violates the Four th Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches if it is c onducted pursuant to a warrant th at is based upon an affidavit containing one or more materi al misrepresentations, and these misrepresentations were made knowingly or in reckless disregard for the truth.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Miser , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25105, 2013-Ohio-1583, ¶12. “‘Reckless disregard’ means that the affiant had 9

 serious doubts of an allegation’s tr uth. * * * Omissions count as fals e statements if ‘designed to mislead, or * * * made in reck less disregard of whether they would mislead, the magistrate.’” (Citations omitted.) Id. “‘[E]xcept in the very rare case where the defendant makes a strong preliminary showing that the affiant with an intention to mislead excluded critical information from the affidavit, and the omission is cr itical to the finding of probable cause, Franks is inapplicable to the omission of disputed facts.’” (Citation omitted.) State v. Blaylock , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24475, 2011-Ohio-4865, ¶15. {¶ 18} “[W]here the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with r eckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Am endment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request.” Franks , 438 U.S. at 155-156, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667. “In the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjur y or reckless disregard is esta blished by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, and, with the affi davit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.” Id. at 156. {¶ 19} In the present case, the trial court held a lengthy hearing on the Franks issue raised in Kilbarger’s suppression motion. 3 The sole witness was agent Stiegelmeyer, the affiant. Defense counsel questioned Stie gelmeyer in detail about the c ontent of his search-warrant affidavit. On appeal, Kilbarger characterizes this hearing as an “initial hearing.” He asserts that

3 The hearing transcript is 125 pages long. 10

 he made a substantial enough s howing of material misrepresen tations, false statements, and omissions during that hearing to warrant a “full hearing.” {¶ 20} Having reviewed the record, we are unsure how a subsequent “full hearing” would have differed from the “initial hearing” or what additional evidence could have been offered. We recognize, however, that the trial court itself treated the hearing it held as an initial one, the stated purpose of which was to determine the need for “a full-blown Franks hearing[.]” ( Franks Tr. at 104). As set forth above, the trial court ruled against K ilbarger at the conclusion of the December 2, 2011 hearing, holding that he ha d “failed to make a pr eliminary showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the affiant, with an intent to mislead, either excluded crucial information from the affidavit or provided false or misleading information in the affidavit.” ( Id

. at 109). Therefore, it held no additional hearing. {¶ 21} On appeal, Kilbarger first contends th e trial court applied the wrong standard when denying him a “full hearing.” He cites Franks for the proposition that a “full hearing” is required if a defendant makes a “substantial preliminary showing” of a Franks violation based on more than conclusory allegations or a desire to cross examine. Kilbarger appears to claim the trial court erred in applying a high er, preponderance-of-the-eviden ce standard and in omitting the “reckless disregard” portion of the test set forth in Franks

. {¶ 22} Upon review, we find no reversible error. Despite the distinction Kilbarger draws between “initial” and “full” Franks hearings, in our view, after a substantial preliminary showing has been made, the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Franks contemplates one evidentiary hearing: * * * To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger’s attack must be 11

 more than conclusory and must be suppor ted by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. They should point out specifically th e portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false; and they s hould be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliabl e statements of witnesses should be furnished, or th eir absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient. The deliberate falsity or reckless disregard whose impeachme nt is permitted today is only that of the affiant, not of any nongovernmental in formant. Finally, if these requirements are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probabl e cause, no hearing is required. On the other hand, if the remaining content is in sufficient, the defendant is entitled, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to his hearing.* * * Franks , 438 U.S. at 171-172, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667. {¶ 23} We find nothing in Franks that obligates a trial court to hold two evidentiary hearings, an “initial” one and a “full” one, particularly where, as here, the affiant testified in detail and was subjected to extensive cross exa mination. In any event, the trial court and the parties contemplated a subsequent “full-blown Franks hearing” if Kilbarger met the applicable legal standard. Although th e trial court only recited part of the standard for obtaining a hearing under Franks , we see no basis to reverse. When re viewing a ruling on a suppression motion, we 12

 apply the applicable legal standard w ithout deference to the trial court. State v. Choice , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25131, 2013-Ohio-2013, ¶45 (recogn izing that an appe llate court must determine “as a matter of law and without deference to the trial court’s legal c onclusion, whether the applicable legal standard is satisfi ed”). Here our de novo application of the Franks standard for obtaining a hearing will cure any alleged defect in the application of that standard below. 4 {¶ 24} In our view, Kilbarger failed to make “a substantial preliminary showing” that a false statement (or omission), necessary to a finding of probable cause, was knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly included in (or omitted from) Stiegelmeyer’s affidavit. See Franks at 155-156. Therefore, even if the December 2, 2011 hearing was only a pre liminary one, the trial court did not err in refusing to hold a “full-blown Franks hearing.”

4 In U.S. v. Fowler , 535 F.3d 408 (6th Cir.2008), the Sixt h Circuit Court of Appeals noted that “t he standard of review with respect to the denial of a Franks hearing is unsettled.” Id. at 415, fn. 2. “Some circuits employ a clear e rror standard, while others review the denial de novo.” Id. Where the “more exacting [de novo ] standard of review is satisfied,” an appellate court need not resolve the dispute. Id. We find that to be the case here. As will be explained more fully above, applying de novo review and adopting the legal standard articu lated in Franks , we conclude that Kilbarger failed to make the “substantial preliminary sh owing” required to obtain an evidentiary hearing on th e alleged misrepresentations under Franks

. {¶ 25} On appeal, Kilbarger alleges nine instances of false or misleading statements in Stiegelmeyer’s affidavit. First, he challenges an averment in paragraph two that a reliable and credible CI informed Stiegelmeyer in Octobe r 2009 about drug-trafficking activity involving McCartney and Kilbarger. During the Decembe r 2, 2011 hearing, Stiegelmeyer conceded that this information about Kilbarger being involved in drug traffick ing had not been verified in October or November 2009. ( Franks Tr. at 67-69). But paragr aph two does not indicate otherwise. It says that the CI told Stiegelmeyer about the drug-tra fficking activity in October 2009, not that Stiegelmeyer verified it then. 13

 {¶ 26} Second, Kilbarger challenges an averme nt in paragraph three that the CI informed Stiegelmeyer in October 2009 that McCa rtney and Kilbarger were large cocaine and marijuana traffickers. Kilbarger stresses Stiegelmeyer’s admission during the hearing that he had not verified Kilbarger’s status as a drug tr afficker in October 2009. Again, however, paragraph three does not say Stiegelmeyer verified this in formation in October 2009. It says only that he received it. {¶ 27} Third, Kilbarger challenges an averment in paragraph three that the CI told Stiegelmeyer in October 2009 that McCartney was the leader of th e drug operation and Kilbarger was a distributor. Kilbarger claims this statement is false because he did not become part of Stiegelmeyer’s “investigation” until May 2010. We disagree. During the hearing, Stiegelmeyer testified that Kilbarger’s name did not appear in any of the agents’ investigative reports until May 2010. ( Franks Tr. at 82-83). This testimony does not c onflict with the averment in paragraph three, which was also consistent with Stiegelmeyer’s in-court testimony, about what the CI told Stiegelmeyer in October 2009. {¶ 28} Fourth, Kilbarger challenges an averment in paragraph seven about the CI telling Stiegelmeyer in May 2010 that Kilbarger’s reside nce was used to store narcotics. Kilbarger characterizes this statement as false because it does not specify when narcotics were stored there or when the CI visited. But omitting when the CI visited Kilbarger’s home or when drugs were stored there did not make the averment false. It only made it less specific and, perhaps, less useful than it otherwise might have been. {¶ 29} Fifth, Kilbarger challenges an averment in paragraph seven that the CI had been to 508 West Sherry Street “in the past to purchase narcotics[.]” Kilbarger claims this statement is 14

 false or misleading because Stiegelmeyer admitted during the hearing that he never asked when the CI last visited. Once again, however, the fact that the affidavit did not mention when the CI purchased drugs at Kilbarger’s home did not make it false or misleading. It made the affidavit non-specific and, to that extent, less helpfu l than it otherwise might have been. {¶ 30} Sixth, Kilbarger challenges an averment in paragraph eight about agents seeing him hand McCartney a white paper bag containing two ounces of cocaine. Kilbarger claims this statement is false because the ag ents did not know what the bag contained when he handed it to McCartney. This argument lacks merit. Agents watched Kilbarger hand McCartney a white McDonald’s bag. Shortly thereafter, they then watched McCartney hand a white McDonald’s bag to the CI. The agents then discovered that the bag contained cocaine . It is, of course, possible that the bag did not contain cocaine when Kilbarge r handed it to McCartney. For purposes of a probable-cause affidavit, howev er, we believe Stiegelmeyer r easonably inferred that it did. {¶ 31} Kilbarger’s seventh and eighth arguments challenge averments regarding GPS tracking devices in vehicles he and McCartney drove. Kilbarger di sputes Stiegelmeyer’s claim in paragraphs nine and ten of hi s affidavit that the GPS tracking devices recorded activity suggestive of drug-trafficking activity. Althoug h we are not persuaded that anything in paragraphs nine and ten violated Franks , Kilbarger’s argument about the tracking-device averments fails to demonstrate a right to a Franks hearing for a more fundamental reason. Specifically, in our analysis above finding that Stiegelmeyer’s affidav it established probable cause, we neither cited nor re lied on the averments in paragr aphs nine and ten about GPS tracking devices. Because those av erments played no role in our probable-cause determination, their inclusion in the a ffidavit cannot warrant a Franks hearing. See Franks , 438 U.S. at 171-172, 15

 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (recognizing that “if, wh en material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required”). {¶ 32} Ninth, Kilbarger challenges an averment in paragraph eighteen that Stiegelmeyer had “made undercover and controlled purchases of marijuana and cocaine from McCartney and Kilbarger[.]” During the hearing, Stiegelmeyer admitted that he personally never had purchased drugs from Kilbarger. ( Franks Tr. at 96). Stiegelmeyer explai ned, however, that when he mentioned purchasing drugs fro m McCartney and Kilbarger, he meant “as a group—as a conspiracy level we have made purchases of narcotic s from this organization.” ( Id . at 95). Although the paragraph could have been worded better, even if pa ragraph eighteen is viewed as misleading or incomplete, it fails to warrant a Franks hearing. As with the GPS tracking-device averments, we did not rely on Stiegelmeyer’s averment about purchasing drugs from Kilbarger when we earlier determined that the search-w arrant affidavit esta blished probable cause. See , supra , at ¶14-15. Therefore, inclusion of the disput ed averment in the affidavit cannot merit a Franks hearing. {¶ 33} In a final argument on appeal, Kilbar ger contends the trial court erred in overruling a motion he filed seek ing reconsideration of the Franks issue. (Doc. #138, 141). The motion was based on an investigative repor t Kilbarger received after the December 2, 2011 hearing. On appeal, he claims the report establishes that he did not become a suspect until after May 12, 2010. He argues that this fact demonstrates Stiegelmeyer’s intent to mislead the issuing judge into granting a warrant on the basis that he “was always a suspect[.]” {¶ 34} Upon review, we find no error in the tr ial court’s denial of reconsideration. 16

 During the Franks hearing, Stiegelmeyer admitted that Kilbarger’s name did not appear in any of the agents’ investigative reports until May 2010. ( Franks Tr. at 82-83). As noted above, this testimony does not conflict with Stiegelmeyer’s averment in paragraph three of his affidavit about what the CI told him in October 2009. More over, we agree with th e trial court’s finding that nothing in the investigative report “suppor t[s] the assertion that Stiegelmeyer’s first involvement with the Defendant” occurred in May 2010. In short, the report containing Kilbarger’s name does not call into question the veracity of any averments in Stiegelmeyer’s probable-cause affidavit. Accordin gly, the trial court properly deni ed reconsideration. Kilbarger’s first assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 35} The judgment of the Montgomery C ounty Common Pleas Court is affirmed.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . FAIN, P.J., and DONOVAN, J., concur.

Copies mailed to: Mathias H. Heck April F. Campbell Bryan K. Penick Hon. Dennis J. Adkins