United States v. Moses, 965 F.3d 1106

Norman Police investigated suspected "chop shop" activity at Jimmie Daryl Moses’s rural property after interviews with multiple informants and review of aerial photos.
Detective Barbour’s 14‑page affidavit described corroborated informant reports, aerial photos showing multiple structures and ~20 vehicles (including a possible white tow truck), and concluded probable cause existed to search for chop‑shop evidence.
A pole surveillance camera was installed April–September 2013; police reviewed footage intermittently but did not find vehicles matching reported stolen cars. The affidavit omitted any reference to the camera or its non‑suspicious footage.
Police executed a state warrant (issued on Barbour’s affidavit) and found stolen vehicles/parts, methamphetamine, and firearms; Moses (a felon) was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
Moses moved to suppress, arguing under Franks v. Delaware that police recklessly omitted materially exculpatory pole‑camera footage and thus was entitled to a Franks evidentiary hearing; the district court denied the hearing.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed whether the omitted camera footage was materially exculpatory such that a Franks hearing was required, and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Moses's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Moses made the substantial preliminary showing required by Franks to obtain an evidentiary hearing challenging alleged reckless omission of pole‑camera footage from the warrant affidavit	The omitted camera footage showed no suspicious activity and thus would have negated probable cause; police recklessly failed to disclose it, so a Franks hearing was required	The affidavit—based on cross‑corroborated informant testimony and aerial photos—established strong probable cause; absence of suspicious footage would not have negated that showing	Denied: the footage was not materially exculpatory and would not have negated probable cause, so no Franks hearing warranted
Proper standard for inferences when assessing a Franks showing (how courts treat permissible vs. required inferences)	District court should draw all reasonable inferences for movant (akin to summary‑judgment standard), in Moses’s favor	Courts are not required to draw unsubstantiated inferences for the defendant; magistrate deference and totality of the evidence govern probable‑cause review	Denied: district court need not adopt all favorable inferences; unsubstantiated inferences are not mandatory when evaluating a Franks showing

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (establishes standard for when omissions or false statements in warrant affidavits require an evidentiary hearing)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause reviewed under totality of circumstances; magistrate’s determination gets great deference)
Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (discusses informant credibility and magistrate review standards)
United States v. Herrera, 782 F.3d 571 (10th Cir.) (explains Franks’s recklessness and materiality elements)
United States v. Williams, 576 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir.) (declines to infer recklessness from past misconduct without supporting evidence)
Beard v. City of Northglenn, 24 F.3d 110 (10th Cir.) (permissible but not mandatory inferences in Franks context)
United States v. Clark, 935 F.3d 558 (7th Cir.) (omissions permit but do not require inference of recklessness; permissible inferences may trigger a Franks hearing if actually drawn)
Puller v. Baca, 781 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir.) (materiality assessed by asking whether including omitted info would negate probable cause)
Pioneer Centres Holding v. Alerus Fin., N.A., 858 F.3d 1324 (10th Cir.) (clarifies summary‑judgment standards are not transplantable to Franks context)
United States v. Hopson, [citation="643 F. App'x 694"] (10th Cir.) (affirming refusal to draw defendant‑favoring inference where alternative explanations exist)