Opinion ID: 78396
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sarras's Motion to Suppress

Text: Sarras moved to suppress the evidence seized from his Tweed residence, alleging that (1) Ortiz's affidavit contained deliberate and material falsehoods and omissions and (2) a Franks hearing was required. [5] The magistrate judge's report recommended denial of Sarras's suppression motion. The magistrate judge found no basis to conclude that Investigator Ortiz acted intentionally or with reckless disregard in omitting material facts from the affidavit. Rather, the magistrate judge determined that the claimed omissions are selective characterizations of what the child said, most of which are immaterial to the probable cause determination in any event. The magistrate judge concluded that [t]here is no indication how these statements, even if true, vitiate the allegations in the Affidavit or the crux of the case: the child's testimony that her stepfather had sex with her and took photographs of her, on a digital camera which he kept at his house. The district court denied Sarras's suppression motion and request for a Franks hearing. The district court found that there existed a fair probability that evidence of the crimes charged would be found in the Defendant's residence and, as to the search affidavit, [t]he level of detail the Defendant demands is legally unsupportable. The district court agreed with the magistrate judge's finding that there was no basis to conclude that Officer Ortiz acted intentionally or with reckless disregard in omitting material facts from her affidavit and that there was no indication of how the statements Sarras contends were omitted, even if true, vitiate the allegations in the Affidavit or the crux of the case.