Did the DEA task force agent act with reckless disregard for the truth when omitting material information that militated against a finding of probable cause from his affidavit or were the omissions permissible, under this Court's precedent Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) and its progeny, as a means to mitigate the risk of revealing the confidential informant's identity?

QUESTION PRESENTED During the investigation of the alleged contraband mailing scheme of Mr. Delgado, law enforcement sought and obtained a warrant for his arrest and warrants to search his home and vehicles. These warrants were granted based on an affidavit submitted by a DEA task force agent, which relied in large part on information | provided by a confidential informant. Mr. Delgado | unsuccessfully sought a/ranks hearing and suppression of the evidence obtained as a result of the issuance of those warrants in the trial court and unsuccessfully | appealed the denial of both to the appellate court. The | issue set forth in this petition concerns the decision by the affiant to withhold key exculpatory information from that , affidavit, ostensibly to protect the identity of the | confidential informant, but in a manner which amounts to | acting with reckless disregard for the truth. The question presented is: Did the DEA task force agent act with reckless | disregard for the truth when omitting material information that militated against a finding of probable cause from his affidavit or were the omissions permissible, under this Court’s precedent Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) and its progeny, as a ; means to mitigate the risk of revealing the confidential | informant’s identity?