the offense did not involve a child at all. McGrew acknowledged that he had seen Flake’s criminal history, had reviewed the Santa Barbara Police report describing the 1991 conviction for oral copulation, and had spoken with Flake’s ex-parole officer. Because Officer McGrew should have been aware of the truth as a result of his review of these documents and his discussion with Flake’s ex-parole officer, we hold that Flake has made a substantial preliminary showing that McGrew was reckless in presenting this false evidence. See United States v. Senchenko, 133 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir.1998) (describing recklessness as requiring a showing that the false statements were made with a “high degree of awareness of probable falsity”); United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775, 780-82 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>), amended by, 769 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir.1985);
holding cocked pistol to suspects head showed reckless disregard for suspects rights holding that deliberate or reckless omissions of facts that tend to mislead are false statements for franks purposes holding that false arrest is one means of committing false imprisonment holding an agents false statements reckless because she was aware of the true facts surrounding the suspects arrest holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative