CA5: There was enough here to support GFE; Franks challenge failed

There at least was some showing of probable cause for the warrant here and the good faith exception applies. He also argued a Franks violation for a misstated fact, but even the best spin on that supports materiality and probable cause. United States v. Peterson, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2736 (5th Cir. Feb. 6, 2025):*

The district court rightly construed Peterson’s argument as getting closest to addressing the third exception to the exception. See supra note 6. And we agree that, despite Peterson’s protests, neither it nor any of the other exceptions apply. The warrant described “Peterson’s false representation to the ATF that he would not store or sell guns on his property; three separate law enforcement purchases from PDW; [and] PDW’s failure to ever file a multiple sales report.” Regardless of whether these facts would actually give rise to probable cause, they at least present “indicia of probable cause” sufficient to render belief in its existence reasonable. See Sibley, 448 F.3d at 757. Indeed, the affidavit at issue here stands in stark contrast to the sorts of “bare bones” affidavits that have been deemed insufficient. See United States v. Brown, 941 F.2d 1300, 1303 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991) (collecting examples). Accordingly, we conclude that the officers who executed the warrant acted reasonably in relying on it. And because none of the exceptions to the good-faith exception apply, it bars application of the exclusionary rule and the district court rightly denied Peterson’s motion to suppress.