Opinion ID: 588821
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged False Statements in the Affidavit

Text: 32 Beaumont suggests the affidavit itself is invalid because it contains an alleged intentional untruth. Specifically, he contends that because the transcripts of the phone calls with Collins and Collins' testimony reveal that the individual seeking to purchase the precursor chemicals identified himself only as Jim, the statement in the affidavit that the caller identified himself as Jimmy Beaumont was false. Our review of the record, however, indicates that this mistake is of no consequence as ample evidence exists permitting the inference that Jim was in fact Jimmy Beaumont. Even were this not the case, we would reject Beaumont's contention because absent the statement regarding the Collins/Beaumont negotiations, the affidavit is sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. See Wake, 948 F.2d at 1429 (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171-72, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2684-85, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978) (where affidavit sufficient following removal of false statement, finding of probable cause affirmed).