Opinion ID: 809350
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Franks Hearing Error

Text: Webb first argues that he was entitled to a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).1 The District Court denied Webb‟s motion for a Franks hearing. Normally, we review the denial of a motion for suppression for clear error as to the underlying facts and exercise plenary review as to its legality. Inasmuch as the most demanding standard articulated by any court is de novo, and because the de novo standard of review is satisfied here, we need not determine the applicable standard today. When reviewing the District Court‟s refusal to hold a Franks hearing de novo, it is clear the court did not err because Webb failed to establish the requisite preliminary showing. 1 A Franks hearing is a hearing to determine whether a police officer‟s affidavit used to obtain a search warrant was based on false statements by the police officer. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). 3 Webb argues that the warrant for his arrest was based on a flawed affidavit. He contends that the affidavit omitted certain facts, that these omissions were intentional or made with reckless disregard for the truth, and, as a result, there could be no probable cause to arrest him. We have conducted a de novo review of the record and conclude that Webb did not meet his burden of establishing he was entitled to a Franks hearing. First, we note that affidavits supporting warrants are presumptively valid. Webb offered no evidence in support of his request for a Franks hearing, and the District Court accordingly determined that he had failed to make a substantial showing that the affidavits reflected false statements that were made knowingly and recklessly. We agree with the District Court. Webb‟s argument focuses on an alleged falsity in two paragraphs of Detective Alonzo‟s affidavit. This allegation, even if true, is not enough to support an inference that Detective Alonzo acted recklessly or was deliberately untruthful. Even if the events at the bank did not occur as allegedly reported in the affidavit, that sheds little light on the affiant‟s veracity. Franks and its progeny make clear that a defendant must make a substantial showing that the affiant knew of or recklessly disregarded the informant‟s untruthfulness. The District Court committed no error in finding that Webb was not entitled to a Franks hearing.