[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13116

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cr-60030-RNS-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

SHANE MICHAEL BRASLOW, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(December 4, 2014)

Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-13116 Date Filed: 12/04/2014 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Shane Braslow challenges his convictions for production of child 

pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), and inducing a minor to engage in sexual 

activity, id. § 2322(b). We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Braslow approached a woman, Zouaine Delacruz, pointed a camera at her, 

and told her he was taking photographs “to put online.” He later grabbed Delacruz

and attempted to drag her into nearby bushes, but she escaped. Delacruz then gave 

information to the police that identified Braslow’s vehicle. Delacruz later identified 

Braslow as her attacker. The police obtained a warrant to search Braslow’s home 

for evidence of his crimes against Delacruz and seized a computer from Braslow’s 

house. The computer contained video recordings that depicted prepubescent 

children engaged in sexual conduct. 

A federal grand jury indicted Braslow on charges of producing child 

pornography and inducing a minor to engage in sexual activity. Braslow moved the 

district court to suppress the evidence obtained from his house on the ground that 

the search warrant was defective. The district court denied his motion. Braslow 

then pleaded guilty to the charges, but reserved the right to appeal the denial of his 

motion to suppress. 

Case: 14-13116 Date Filed: 12/04/2014 Page: 2 of 5 
3

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

This appeal is governed by two standards of review. We review de novo

whether an affidavit for a search warrant established probable cause. United States 

v. Mathis, 767 F.3d 1264, 1274–75 (11th Cir. 2014). We review a denial of a 

request for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674 

(1978), for abuse of discretion. United States v. Barsoum, 763 F.3d 1321, 1328 

(11th Cir. 2014).

III. DISCUSSION

Braslow makes two arguments to support his contention that the evidence 

from his computer should have been suppressed, but both arguments fail. We 

discuss each argument in turn. 

First, Braslow argues that the evidence from his computer should be 

suppressed because the search warrant was not supported by probable cause, but 

we disagree. “To obtain a warrant, police must establish probable cause to 

conclude that there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence will be found 

in a particular place.” United States v. Gibson, 708 F.3d 1256, 1278 (11th Cir.

2013). The affidavit established that Braslow was at his house when police arrested 

him, that he had changed clothes since the crime, and that he made statements 

about uploading photographs to the internet. Based on this information, there was a 

Case: 14-13116 Date Filed: 12/04/2014 Page: 3 of 5 
4

“fair probability” that the house contained evidence of Braslow’s alleged crimes 

against Delacruz. Gibson, 708 F.3d at 1278

Second, Braslow contends that the district court erred when it denied his 

request for a hearing to establish that the search warrant was based on “false or 

recklessly misleading statements,” Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 

2674 (1978), but this argument fails too. A Franks hearing is warranted only 

“where a defendant ‘makes a substantial preliminary showing’ that an affiant made 

intentionally false or recklessly misleading statements (or omissions), and those 

statements are ‘necessary to the finding of probable cause.’” Barsoum, 763 F.3d at 

1328 (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 155–56, 98 S. Ct. at 2676). Braslow alleged that 

the affiant falsely stated that Delacruz had said that Braslow changed clothes and 

deliberately omitted statements that his girlfriend made about the camera, but 

Braslow presented no evidence that the allegedly false statement or omissions were 

deliberate or reckless. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it refused 

to hold a hearing.

And even if the affiant’s alleged errors were deliberate, they would not 

affect the “finding of probable cause.” Id. at 1328. The police knew that Braslow 

had changed his clothes; the affiant, at worst, misidentified only the source of that 

information. And the omitted statements established only that Braslow’s girlfriend 

had not seen photographs from Braslow’s camera on his computer or seen his 

Case: 14-13116 Date Filed: 12/04/2014 Page: 4 of 5 
5

camera in the house, during the twenty minutes she was there that morning. But

based on Braslow’s own statements that he was taking photographs of Delacruz to 

“put online,” there was still a “fair probability” that evidence related to his crime 

would be found in his house and on his computer. Gibson, 708 F.3d at 1278.

IV. CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM Braslow’s convictions. 

Case: 14-13116 Date Filed: 12/04/2014 Page: 5 of 5