Does the Warrant Clause require a new trial when newly-discovered evidence establishes that a law enforcement affiant concealed prior felonious conduct in wiretap and search warrant applications?

QUESTION PRESENTED Nearly half a century ago, this Court held that the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause “surely takes the affiant’s good faith as its premise.” Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 169 (1978). In this case, the law enforcement officer whose sworn affidavits resulted in the issuance of critical wiretap orders and search warrants was a drug trafficker and a thief. After Petitioners were indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced, the Government disclosed that the affiant repeatedly and flagrantly concealed his prior criminal conduct from issuing judges. Yet the Fourth Circuit held that a new trial was not warranted because, regardless of the affiant’s concealment of critical information about his background and qualifications, other information in the affidavits established probable cause. I. Does the Warrant Clause require a new trial — and the right to seek suppression of evidence — when newly-discovered, undisputed evidence establishes that an affiant who applied to district and magistrate judges for wiretap orders and search warrants in bad faith concealed his prior felonious conduct, tainting the evidence obtained directly and derivatively from those orders and warrants? iti The Due Process Clause provides that “no person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. In the sentencing context, this Court have consistently held that where a district court imposes a sentence outside of the Guidelines range, an appellate court must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 47 (2007). A major variance should be supported by a more significant justification than a minor one. Id. at 50. II. Does the Due Process Clause and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) Require a District Court to Provide a Compelling Justification to Support a Nearly Two-Fold Upward Variance from the Sentencing Guidelines Contravening Binding Authority that Affects the Fundamental Rights of a Criminal Defendant and Is An Important And Recurring Issue.