When a defendant moves to quash a search warrant, the trial court must review the totality of the circumstances presented to the magistrate in the affidavit in support of the warrant, and assess whether the magistrate correctly determined there was a "'fair probability'" that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found at the location named in the place to be searched. If the trial court finds that the affidavit established probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, then the court will deny defendant's motion to quash the warrant. (People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 975.) A reviewing court "should not conduct a de novo review of the evidence," but rather, should only determine whether the affidavit fails as a matter of law to set forth sufficient competent evidence to support a finding of probable cause. (People v. McDaniels (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1560, 1564.) In Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant has a limited right to challenge the veracity of statements contained in an affidavit of probable cause made in support of the issuance of a search warrant. To mandate an evidentiary hearing on a Franks motion to traverse the warrant, the defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit contains material omissions or misstatements which were made either intentionally or with a reckless disregard for the truth. (Id. at pp. 155-156.) The defendant must also show that the affidavit's remaining contents, after the false statements are excised, are insufficient to justify a finding of probable cause. (Id. at pp. 155-156.) At the evidentiary hearing, the defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the false statements were made either deliberately or recklessly, and were necessary to a finding of probable cause. (Franks, supra, 438 U.S. at pp. 155-156.) If the defendant prevails, the search warrant is voided and the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant suppressed. (Ibid.) However, innocent or negligent omissions or misstatements will not defeat the warrant. (Franks, supra, 438 U.S. at pp. 155-156; see also People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 496.) A mere discrepancy between the actual facts and those recited in the affidavit does not establish reckless disregard for truth; there must be some evidence of affiant's mental state for such a showing. (People v. Costello (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 431.) But "the 'police cannot insulate one officer's deliberate misstatement merely by relaying it through an officer-affiant personally ignorant of its falsity.'" (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1300, quoting Franks, supra, 438 U.S. at pp. 163-164, fn. 6.)