1 CA-CR 07-0177-91122

to warrant a Franks hearing), amended by 777 F.2d 543 (9th Cir.
1985).
20 Defendant next contends that the affidavit falsely
identified him visiting the warehouse on April 15.
Detective
Valadez acknowledged the error that he had mistakenly believed
the person he saw that morning was Defendant.
The affidavit
reported that Defendant and Gonzales were observed carrying
containers of gasoline into the warehouse. The person
accompanying Gonzales was actually Kevin Goldsmith, one of
Defendant’s colleagues from Philadelphia, and was discovered
when the warehouse was searched.
Based on Detective Valadez’s
testimony, the trial court could have reasonably found that the
misidentification was simply an innocent or negligent mistake as
opposed to an intentional or reckless misstatement of fact.
There was no claim that the misidentification was anything other
than an honest mistake, and our review of the record does not
suggest a different conclusion.
21 Moreover, the identification of Defendant at the
warehouse on April 15 was not significant to the finding of
probable cause.
The operative fact for purposes of probable
cause was that subjects associated with the warehouse were
bringing gasoline. The misidentification of Defendant for
Goldsmith was immaterial to the determination of probable cause.
10