With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). In Franks, the Supreme Court held that a facially sufficient search warrant could be invalid and evidence suppressed if the affidavit in support of the warrant contained materially false or misleading allegations. A defendant challenging the veracity of an affidavit must show deliberate falsity or reckless disregard; allegations of innocent mistake or negligence are insufficient. Id. at 171, 98 S.Ct. at 2684. In other words, evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that was based on a misleading or incomplete affidavit will not be suppressed if the affiant acted in good faith. Thus, Leon’s good faith analysis is an integral part of a Franks analysis. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923, 926, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 3421, 3422, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Title III requires that each application for

A: holding that only reckless or deliberate police conduct will trigger suppression
B: holding that only deliberate clear and unambiguous statements are judicial admissions
C: holding that deliberate or reckless omissions of facts that tend to mislead are false statements for franks purposes
D: holding that consequence of deliberate violation of parental notification statute is suppression of statements made by defendant
A.