## Facts

- Massachusetts state police obtained a state-court warrant to search Gregory F. Tzannos’s residence based on an affidavit alleging illegal sports bookmaking.
- The affiant trooper stated that a confidential informant (CI-1) reported placing illegal bets with Tzannos by calling an unpublished phone number linked to him.
- The affidavit described phone-record corroboration, including that the betting line was subscribed to Tzannos and that calls were forwarded to another number in a pattern said to be consistent with bookmaking practices.
- The affidavit also asserted that CI-1 made a recorded controlled call to the betting line during which CI-1 and Tzannos discussed wagers.
- In the ensuing federal prosecution, Tzannos moved to suppress, arguing the affidavit contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods because CI-1 allegedly did not exist and the controlled call allegedly never occurred.
- Tzannos relied on purported betting “ledger sheets” said to list all wagering calls to the line on the date of the controlled call and asserted that the listed callers were known bettors willing to swear they were not informants.
- The government disputed the nonexistence claim and sought to substantiate CI-1’s existence and reliability through an ex parte, in camera proffer to avoid endangering the informant.
- The district court granted a Franks hearing, declined to consider the government’s ex parte/in camera submission, and suppressed the evidence without making specific Franks findings.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant made the “substantial preliminary showing” required by Franks v. Delaware to justify a hearing and relief based on alleged deliberate or reckless falsity in a warrant affidavit.
2. Whether the district court erred by suppressing evidence without specific Franks findings and by refusing to consider an ex parte, in camera government showing concerning a confidential informant’s existence and safety.

## Decision

- The First Circuit reversed the suppression order and remanded with instructions to deny the motion to suppress.
- The court held that the defendant’s proffer did not satisfy Franks’s demanding threshold for showing intentional or reckless falsity and materiality.
- The court ruled that the district court erred by effectively crediting the defense’s materials as dispositive without the required Franks analysis and without accounting for corroborating evidence supporting the affidavit.
- The court concluded that the district court improperly refused to consider an ex parte, in camera submission offered to establish the informant’s existence while protecting informant safety.
- The court faulted the suppression ruling for lacking explicit findings identifying the alleged false statements, the affiant’s mental state, and whether probable cause remained after excising any false material.

## Legal Principles

- A Franks challenge requires a substantial preliminary showing that (1) the affiant knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, included a false statement (or omission) in the affidavit, and (2) the challenged matter was necessary to probable cause.
- The Franks threshold is exacting; speculative inferences and contested alternative accounts generally do not suffice to establish deliberate or reckless fabrication.
- Objective corroboration (such as phone subscriber data and call-forwarding records) may support an affidavit’s reliability and can weaken a claim that an informant narrative was fabricated wholesale.
- When an informant’s identity or safety is implicated, courts may use ex parte, in camera procedures to evaluate the government’s support for an informant’s existence and reliability while limiting disclosure to the defense.
- A suppression order premised on alleged affidavit falsity must include specific findings on falsity, culpable mental state, and the effect of excising any false material on probable cause.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit reinstated the warrant evidence, holding that the defendant’s materials did not meet Franks’s demanding preliminary showing and that the district court could not suppress without explicit Franks findings and without considering protective in camera procedures to assess the government’s informant-related proof.


United States v. Tzannos, 460 F.3d 128 (1st Cir. 2006)