Opinion ID: 435102
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Omissions or Misrepresentations in the Affidavit

Text: 30 Appellants argue that the affidavit contained material omissions and false statements that negate its facial showing of probable cause. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). 31 In Franks, the Supreme Court held that a defendant could challenge a facially valid affidavit by showing that (1) the affidavit contains intentionally or recklessly false statements, and (2) the affidavit purged of its falsities would not be sufficient to support a finding of probable cause. United States v. Lefkowitz, 618 F.2d 1313, 1317 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 824, 101 S.Ct. 86, 66 L.Ed.2d 27 (1980). 32 After a hearing, the district court concluded that appellants met neither prong of the Franks test. We agree. 33 First, the alleged misrepresentations and omissions were not the sort of intentional or recklessly false statements that Franks prohibits. See 438 U.S. at 171, 98 S.Ct. at 2684. Cf. Lefkowitz, 618 F.2d at 1317 n. 3 (open question whether Franks permits attacks on affidavits marred by omissions of facts.). 34 Second, the appellants' allegations do not undermine the sufficiency of the affidavit. Probable cause existed even if the misrepresentations and omissions were cured. See Lefkowitz, 618 F.2d at 1317; United States v. Taxe, 540 F.2d 961, 967 (9th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040, 97 S.Ct. 737, 50 L.Ed.2d 751 (1977). Cf. United States v. Esparza, 546 F.2d 841, 844 (9th Cir.1976) (misrepresentations were critical to finding of probable cause).