In Dancy v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals capsulized the nature of the false statements that will cause excision under Franks v. Delaware. See Dancy v. State, 728 S.W.2d 772, 779-83 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The court noted that the statement in question must first be false and second must have been either intentional or made with reckless disregard for the truth. See id. at 782. If a misstatement is an instance "where police have been merely negligent in checking or recording the facts relevant to a probable-cause determination," it falls outside the ambit of Franks v. Delaware. See Dancy, 728 S.W.2d at 782 (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 170). Moreover, while facts in a search warrant affidavit should be truthful, this does not mean every fact recited in the warrant affidavit must necessarily be factually accurate or correct. See Dancy, 728 S.W.2d at 780-81 (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 165). Given the haste often attendant to the preparation of an affidavit, as well as the complication of the multiple sources of information often utilized, it is sufficient, in order for the factual statements to fall outside the ambit of Franks, that the information in the affidavit is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true. See id. (quoting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. at 165).