In Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), counsel orally amended his motion to suppress in order to challenge the veracity of the affidavit filed in support of a search warrant. In support of the motion, counsel requested the right to call three witnesses. Counsel alleged that two witnesses would testify that "neither had been personally interviewed by the warrant affiants, and that, although they might have talked to another police officer, any information given by them to that officer was 'somewhat different' from what was recited in the affidavit." (Franks v. Delaware, supra, 438 U.S. at p. 158.) Although the starting point in Franks begins with a "presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant," (Franks v. Delaware, supra, 438 U.S. at p. 171) the Supreme Court also recognized that "a flat ban on impeachment of veracity" would in effect insulate wrongdoing. (Id. at p. 168.) "The requirement that a warrant not issue 'but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,' would be reduced to a nullity if a police officer was able to use deliberately falsified allegations to demonstrate probable cause, and, having misled the magistrate, then was able to remain confident that the ploy was worthwhile." (Ibid.) Franks therefore holds that to "mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must: (1) be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. (2) There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. (3) They should point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. (4) affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient. . . . Finally, if these requirements are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required. On the other hand, if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, to his hearing." (Franks v. Delaware, supra, 438 U.S. at pp. 171-172.) The United States Supreme Court held that a defendant may challenge the veracity of statements contained in an affidavit of probable cause made in support of the issuance of a search warrant. When presented with such a challenge, the lower courts must conduct an evidentiary hearing if a defendant makes a substantial showing that: (1) the affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made in reckless disregard of the truth and (2) the affidavit's remaining contents, after the false statements are excised, are insufficient to justify a finding of probable cause. At the evidentiary hearing, if the statements are proved by a preponderance of the evidence to be false or reckless, they must be considered excised. If the remaining contents of the affidavit are insufficient to establish probable cause, the warrant must be voided and any evidence seized pursuant to that warrant must be suppressed. (Id. at pp. 155-156.)The United States Supreme Court held that "where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request." Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. An affidavit supporting a search warrant begins with a presumption of validity; thus, the defendant has the burden of making a preliminary showing of deliberate falsehoods in that affidavit before he is entitled to a Franks hearing. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171 As the Supreme Court explained: To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof. They should point out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons. Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained. Allegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient. Id. at 171. The United States Supreme Court held that if an affirmative misstatement is knowingly or recklessly included in a probable cause affidavit and it is material and necessary to establishing probable cause, the warrant is rendered invalid if the remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. While some state and federal courts have extended the Franks analysis to omissions from probable cause affidavits, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has never extended the Franks analysis to omissions. The United States Supreme Court held that when the accused proves by a preponderance of the evidence that "a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and that the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that the fruits of the search must be excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit." Id. at 155-156; see, also, State v. Waddy (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 424, 441, 588 N.E.2d 819. The United States Supreme Court considered whether a defendant could challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155. The Court concluded that such challenges were permissible in certain, limited circumstances. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72. The Court held: "Where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request." Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. If the defendant establishes perjury or reckless disregard for the truth at the hearing, that false material must be excised from the warrant affidavit. Franks, 438 U.S. at 156. If the remaining contents of the affidavit are insufficient to establish probable cause, "the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit." Franks, 438 U.S. at 156. The defendant's attack on the affidavit "must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine." Franks, 438 U.S. at 171. Furthermore, Franks only permits a challenge to the deliberate falsity or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant, not by a nongovernmental informant. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171.