" The Detectives Ronald R. Brooks and Larry D. Gray, in their affidavit (that is the written statement by the police about what happened), stated that he had gone to Franks' work, and spoken to two of Franks' colleagues. According to the affidavit, one of Franks' coworkers said "the normal dress of Jerome Franks does consist of a white knit thermal undershirt and a brown leather jacket." The other colleague, again, according to the detectives' affidavit, said that in addition to the thermal undershirt and jacket, Franks often wears a "dark green knit hat." This was very powerful evidence. However, neither of the coworkers had actually been interviewed by the detectives. Both men were prepared to testify that they had never personally spoken to the detectives. The Supreme Court dismissed the case and in doing so set forth the new standard to attack the truthfulness or veracity of the statements made in affidavits:.
First, the defendant must establish, by a "substantial preliminary showing" that the statement contained in the affidavit was either made with the affiant's knowledge that the information was false or with a reckless disregard for the truth. The court indicated that mere negligent or innocent mistakes were not subject to this type of review. Further, false statements by someone other than the affiant cannot be challenged using this case. Once a prima facie case has been made, the disputed material is set aside. If the remaining content still establishes probable cause, then the warrant stands, and there is no further inquiry. If the remaining content does not establish probable cause the warrant is voided, and the evidence from the illegal search is excluded.
So the bottom line here is that the Supreme Court is saying that the defense attorney has to show that the information being challenged in the affidavit was written by the police was either knowingly false or made in reckless disregard for the truth.