Opinion ID: 787776
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Renewed Motion to Suppress Wiretap Evidence

Text: 18 Staves's second motion to suppress, with a request for a Franks hearing, argues that Staves discovered the identity of CS1 and that person was not privy to the details of Staves's narcotics trafficking activities. Therefore, Staves argues that CS1 lied to investigators and his lies were incorporated into the wiretap affidavit. Staves argues that the wiretap application purged of the false information does not support a finding of probable cause. Because the renewed motion challenges the truth of information in the wiretap application, a Franks hearing ordinarily would be necessary for Staves to prove his allegations, so we turn to whether the district court erred in denying a Franks hearing on the second motion to suppress. 19 The motion does not allege that the affiant, Agent Waldeck, acted deliberately or recklessly in incorporating any false information into the affidavit. A Franks motion must challenge the veracity of the affiant. See United States v. Perdomo, 800 F.2d 916, 920 (9th Cir.1986) (stating that under Franks ... the veracity of only the affiant must be challenged); United States v. Kiser, 716 F.2d 1268, 1271 (9th Cir.1983) (The offer of proof [for a Franks hearing] must challenge the veracity of the affiant, not that of his informant.). Allegations that the affiant negligently or innocently included false information are insufficient to require a Franks hearing. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674. Because Staves did not identify any false statement deliberately or recklessly included in the wiretap application, we conclude that the district court properly denied a Franks hearing on the renewed motion. 4