Opinion ID: 604566
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Allegedly False Statement in the Affidavit

Text: 6 Flockhart contests the finding of probable cause based on the statement in the affidavit that the informant, Edgington, identified Flockhart's van (which was at the time under repair in a garage) as belonging to the cocaine supplier. Flockhart contends Mr. Edgington's statement was a false statement because Edgington could not have seen Flockhart's van at the garage on the date stated in the affidavit. Opening Brief at 23. Flockhart claims there should have been a Franks hearing to show that the false statement was reckless or intentional. 7 We have held that [a]llegations that statements reported in the affidavit and made to the affiant are false are not sufficient to satisfy the requirements for a Franks hearing unless the defendant contends that the affiant has misrepresented the statements made by another. United States v. Perdomo, 800 F.2d 916, 921 (9th Cir.1986) (citation omitted). Therefore, Flockhart's contention that Edgington, who was not the affiant, made a false statement is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement for a Franks hearing. 8 Flockhart also makes the argument that the affiant lied because Edgington did not make the false statement: [the affiant's] statement that Mr. Edgington made the statement was completely false. [The affiant's] false statement must have been 'knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless regard for the truth' made to be included in the affidavit to be included in the affidavit within the meaning of Franks. Opening Brief at 23. 9 The Supreme Court has held that a defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit.... Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56 (1978). Flockhart presented no evidence that the affiant, Officer Lee, either lied himself or knew or should have known that Edgington lied. No declarations or other evidence regarding the van were before the court. Therefore, Flockhart failed to make a substantial preliminary showing that he was entitled to a Franks hearing. 10