Is there error in the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered in a search, pursuant to a search warrant, of Room 113 of the Hotel?

Nor was there error in the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence recovered in a search, pursuant to a search warrant, of Room 113 of the hotel, nor in the denial of a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), by reason of the fact that some of the information given by law enforcement to the judge who issued that warrant was false.

"To suppress evidence obtained pursuant to [a sworn statement] 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. 2020) (quotation marks omitted). Applying the second prong of this test requires courts to "disregard the allegedly false statements and determine whether the remaining portions of the [sworn statements made to the judge] would support probable cause to issue the warrant." Id. at 718 (internal quotation marks omitted). This inquiry is a legal question, which we review de novo, without deference to the issuing judge's probable cause determination "because [the judge] did not have an opportunity to assess the [application] without the inaccuracies." Id. at 717.