State v. Gonzalez, 494 P.3d 1066

At ~3:42 a.m. a nanny-cam captured an intruder entering a bedroom where a woman (Christina) and her infant slept; the intruder performed a lewd act while holding a cell phone and wore a wedding ring; face was not visible.
No forced entry; evidence suggested familiarity with the house and possible garage-code entry; victim identified both a brother‑in‑law and close family friend Jonathan Gonzalez as possible suspects and mentioned a prior "inappropriate incident" involving Gonzalez years earlier.
A lieutenant, with Gonzalez’s wife’s permission, made a very brief, cursory search of two closets at Gonzalez’s home but found no matching clothing (unbeknownst to him the nanny-cam inverted colors).
A detective prepared a warrant affidavit seeking historical cell‑tower location data for Gonzalez’s phone but omitted (1) the closet search, (2) Christina’s equivocation and identification of a brother‑in‑law as another possible suspect, and (3) details/timing of the prior inappropriate incident.
A magistrate issued the warrant; tower records placed Gonzalez near the victim’s home; a second warrant followed and evidence led to charges. The district court held a Franks hearing, found the omissions reckless and material, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the case.
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding that even with the three omitted facts included the affidavit supported probable cause and therefore suppression was erroneous.

Issue	State's Argument	Gonzalez's Argument	Held
Were material facts recklessly omitted from the affidavit?	Detective did not recklessly omit material facts.	Detective recklessly omitted three material facts that made the affidavit misleading.	Court did not definitively resolve recklessness on appeal but proceeded to decide the dispositive question: probable cause.
Would inclusion of the omitted facts defeat probable cause to obtain tower records?	Even with the omitted facts included, the affidavit supports probable cause under the totality of the circumstances.	Inclusion of the omitted facts would negate probable cause and render the warrant invalid.	Inclusion of the omitted facts does not defeat probable cause; warrant remains valid and suppression was erroneous.
Do details of the prior "inappropriate incident" weaken the affidavit?	The omitted details (what happened and timing), if included, would strengthen suspicion of Gonzalez.	Omitting the specifics made the affidavit misleading and minimized the incident’s relevance/timing.	The Court found the detailed prior incident actually strengthens, not weakens, the inference Gonzalez could be the intruder.

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (affidavits must be truthful; deliberate or reckless falsehoods/omissions may trigger a Franks hearing)
State v. Fuller, 332 P.3d 937 (Utah 2014) (Franks‑type test for omissions and requirement to prove materiality and intentional/reckless exclusion)
State v. Nielsen, 727 P.2d 188 (Utah 1986) (omissions can be treated like misstatements under Franks)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause assessed by totality-of-the-circumstances)
State v. Moreno, 203 P.3d 1000 (Utah 2009) (probable cause is a flexible, commonsense standard)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (U.S. 1996) (review standards for probable cause and searches)