Opinion ID: 43414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Affidavit Supporting the Search Warrant

Text: Manning also argues, pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674 (1978), that the search warrant was invalid because the Hunnings affidavit supporting the warrant contained statements in reckless disregard for the truth. This argument is equally unavailing. Under Franks, a defendant can have a warrant voided and the fruits of the search excluded based on false statements in the supporting affidavit only if he shows that: (1) the falsehood was deliberate or in reckless disregard for the truth; and (2) the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause. Id. at 171-72, 98 S. Ct. at 2684-85; see also United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 986-87 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, Manning’s motions were properly denied because he failed to show that officer Hunnings’s affidavit contained statements in reckless disregard for the would apply. 15 truth.4 The testimony of Baucham and Sanders indicated that Sanders claimed he faked the controlled buys. However, the district court found Sanders to be incredible, and we defer to that finding. See Gregg, 179 F.3d at 1316. Further, Sanders admitted that he told Hunnings he had purchased cocaine from Manning and that he produced cocaine after the controlled buys. Thus, even assuming that Sanders faked the controlled buys, Sanders’s own testimony suggests that officer Hunnings reasonably believed Sanders purchased cocaine from Manning. While officer Hunnings did not search Sanders’s mouth because it did not occur to him, officer Hunnings did search Sanders’s shirt, ankles, and bicycle before the controlled buy.5 In addition, officer Hunnings equipped Sanders with audio and video recording devices and obtained video footage that appeared to show a drug deal. Although officer Hunnings perhaps could have taken further precautions, such as performing a more intrusive search or maintaining constant visual surveillance of Sanders, his failure to do so does not amount to a reckless disregard for the truth. Manning cites no authority indicating otherwise. For all the above reasons, the orders of the district court are affirmed. AFFIRMED. 4 Manning does not argue that officer Hunnings deliberately made false statements. 5 Although Sanders claimed that officer Hunnings did not search him, the district court found Sanders incredible and found that officer Hunnings searched Sanders. 16