DOJ-OGR-00004798.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document307 Filed 06/25/21 Page14 of 21 misleading. Dkt. No. 134, at 14. In any event, the Court is not without guidance on when a prosecutor’s misrepresentation requires a court to suppress evidence. Precedent requires courts to adhere to the standards governing analogous Fourth Amendment claims when asked to suppress evidence under their inherent authority. See Lambus, 897 F.3d at 401-02. The Supreme Court has set out a clear standard governing when a misrepresentation to a magistrate in a warrant affidavit justifies suppression of evidence obtained as a result. See Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). That standard requires more than an inadvertent misstatement. “To suppress evidence obtained pursuant to an affidavit containing erroneous information, the defendant must show that: (1) the claimed inaccuracies or omissions are the result of the affiant’s deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth; and (2) the alleged falsehoods or omissions were necessary to the issuing judge’s probable cause finding.” United States v. Canfield, 212 F.3d 713, 717-18 (2d Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). The Supreme Court’s decision in Franks forecloses the argument that all misstatements to a court—even all intentional misstatements—necessarily require suppression. A defendant cannot circumvent this standard by couching the same arguments in due process or the court’s inherent authority instead. See Payner, 447 U.S. at 736. Franks also defines the standard governing when a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress based on the Government’s misrepresentation to a court. To justify an evidentiary hearing, a defendant must make a “substantial preliminary showing” of a deliberately or recklessly false statement and that the alleged false statement was necessary to the court’s decision. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155. “Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient.” /d. at 171. 14 DOJ-OGR- 00004798