{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "141",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 141 of 239\nalleged omissions and correcting the alleged errors, the “ultimate inquiry” is whether “there remains a residue of independent and lawful information sufficient to support probable cause.” United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68, 74 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[E]ven if the misrepresented or omitted information was material, a motion to suppress is to be denied unless the misrepresentations or omissions were intentional or deliberate, or were made in reckless disregard for the truth.” Lambus, 897 F.3d at 399. The standard to demonstrate material false statements and omissions in an agent's affidavit is a “high one.” Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592, 604 (2d Cir. 1991). The intent prong of Franks is particularly demanding with respect to omissions. “Franks protects against omissions that are designed to mislead, or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead.” Awadallah, 349 F.3d at 68 (emphasis in original). After all, “‘[a]ll storytelling involves an element of selectivity,’ and it is therefore not necessarily constitutionally significant that an affidavit ‘omit[s] facts which, in retrospect, seem significant.’” United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698, 708 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041, at *27 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007)); see also United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585 (WHP), 2018 WL 740727, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2018) (“As courts in this Circuit have recognized, it is not shocking that every affidavit will omit facts which, in retrospect, seem significant.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). The “substantial preliminary showing” requirement explained above exists to “avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful.” Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. “[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law.” United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN), 2018 WL 1737236, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018); see also 114 DOJ-OGR-00003075",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 141 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "alleged omissions and correcting the alleged errors, the “ultimate inquiry” is whether “there remains a residue of independent and lawful information sufficient to support probable cause.” United States v. Martin, 426 F.3d 68, 74 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[E]ven if the misrepresented or omitted information was material, a motion to suppress is to be denied unless the misrepresentations or omissions were intentional or deliberate, or were made in reckless disregard for the truth.” Lambus, 897 F.3d at 399. The standard to demonstrate material false statements and omissions in an agent's affidavit is a “high one.” Rivera v. United States, 928 F.2d 592, 604 (2d Cir. 1991). The intent prong of Franks is particularly demanding with respect to omissions. “Franks protects against omissions that are designed to mislead, or that are made in reckless disregard of whether they would mislead.” Awadallah, 349 F.3d at 68 (emphasis in original). After all, “‘[a]ll storytelling involves an element of selectivity,’ and it is therefore not necessarily constitutionally significant that an affidavit ‘omit[s] facts which, in retrospect, seem significant.’” United States v. Lahey, 967 F. Supp. 2d 698, 708 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (quoting United States v. Vilar, No. 05 Cr. 621 (KMK), 2007 WL 1075041, at *27 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2007)); see also United States v. DeFilippo, No. 17 Cr. 585 (WHP), 2018 WL 740727, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2018) (“As courts in this Circuit have recognized, it is not shocking that every affidavit will omit facts which, in retrospect, seem significant.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). The “substantial preliminary showing” requirement explained above exists to “avoid fishing expeditions into affidavits that are otherwise presumed truthful.” Falso, 544 F.3d at 125. “[C]onclusory allegations cannot support a Franks challenge as a matter of law.” United States v. Pizarro, No. 17 Cr. 151 (AJN), 2018 WL 1737236, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2018); see also",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "114",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003075",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "United States",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2005",
      "1991",
      "2013",
      "Apr. 4, 2007",
      "Jan. 31, 2018",
      "Apr. 10, 2018"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "426 F.3d 68",
      "897 F.3d 399",
      "928 F.2d 592",
      "349 F.3d 68",
      "967 F. Supp. 2d 698",
      "544 F.3d 125",
      "05 Cr. 621 (KMK)",
      "17 Cr. 585 (WHP)",
      "17 Cr. 151 (AJN)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003075"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a formal and technical tone. The text includes citations to various court cases and legal precedents."
}