Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM and ORDER ELFVIN, Senior District Judge. The above individuals (“the defendants”), twenty-nine in all, are charged in and by a Superceding Indictment filed April 28, 1998, with having conspired to possess particular controlled substances with the intention to distribute the same and with distributing such. Further, certain of the defendants are charged with— non-eonspiratorially — distributing particular controlled substances and one of the defendants is charged with having unlawfully engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise. Certain pretrial motions filed by or on behalf of fifteen of the defendants were referred to the Hon Leslie G. Foschio, a United States Magistrate Judge of this Court, for his consideration and recommended dispositions. Judge Foschio’s Decision and Order (“the R & R”) was filed May 21, 1998. Thereafter and timely, certain of the defendants filed objections to the R & R, oppositions to such objections were served and filed. All of the same have been argued to the undersigned who has taken the same and the R & R into deliberative consideration. The undersigned has given close attention to the premises advanced on behalf of each of such objecting defendants, has examined certain items which Judge Foschio had placed under seal and has considered all of the legal and factual arguments presented by such defendants. Upon such due consideration, the May 81, 1998 Decision and Order of Judge Fos-chio is affirmed in all aspects. Such objections are therefore and hereby ORDERED denied. REPORT and RECOMMENDATION FOSCHIO, United States Magistrate Judge. JURISDICTION This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. John T. Elfvin on July 9, 1997. The matter is presently before the court for a determination of pretrial motions from Defendants Donald Benjamin (Doc. # 119), filed December 12, 1997, Wilson (Doc. # 118), filed December 12, 1997, Ingénito (Doc. # 138), filed December 31,1997, Scicchitano (Doc. # 120), filed December 15, 1997, Wiggins (Doc. # 94), filed November 14, 1997, Bryant (Doc. # 136), filed December 29, 1997, Boula (Doc. # 139), filed January 9, 1998, Ferguson (Doc. #98), filed November 4, 1997, Friel (Docs. #33 and 128), filed July 7, 1997 and December 16, 1997, respectively, Hanson (Doc. # 130), filed December 23, 1997, Johnson (Doc. # 90), filed September 23, 1997, Keith (Doc. # 104), filed November 24, 1997, Kohl (Doc. # 95), filed November 14,1997, Sharpe (Doc. # 102), filed November 19, 1997, and Thomas (Doc. # 121), filed December 15,1997.-’ BACKGROUND and FACTS Defendants were indicted in a twenty-three count indictment on June 24, 1997 charging violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), § 841(b)(1)(A), § 841(b)(1)(B), § 841(b)(1)(C), § 846, § 848, § 853(a), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Specifically, Defendants are charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and with the distribution, of 50 grams or more of crack cocaine, 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, and 50 kilograms or more of marijuana. Defendant Donald Benjamin is charged as the principal organizer of a continuing criminal enterprise. The individual defendants are also charged with offenses including the unlawful distribution of cocaine. Additionally, the Government is seeking the forfeiture of assets constituting the proceeds from controlled substance violations against Defendants Donald Benjamin, Wilson, Ingénito, Scicchitano. Defendants have filed omnibus motions seeking, inter alia, to dismiss their respective charges on the grounds of facial insufficiency and double jeopardy, to suppress evidence as seized pursuant to search warrants issued without probable cause, suppression of the federal electronic communication intercept evidence and the statements obtained from the intercept, and for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). The Government responded on January 9, 1998. Oral argument was conducted on January 23, 1998. Copies of the in camera applications for the state search warrants at issue were delivered to the court on March 16 and March 25, 1998. On April 30, 1998, the court directed the Government to respond to Defendants Wilson, Friel and Kohl’s requests for disclosure of the in camera testimony provided to obtain the state search warrants issued as to their respective premises. The response was filed May 7, 1998; replies were filed by Defendants Kohl and Wilson on May 13, 1998, as directed. DISCUSSION 1. Dismissal of the Indictment Defendants move to dismiss on various grounds, including insufficiency, double jeopardy, duplicity, and that the Indietment was based on improperly obtained evidence. The Government has opposed the motion on each of these grounds. a. Sufficiency of the Indictment Defendants claim that the Indictment fails to fairly apprise them of the conduct giving risé to the charged offenses, as required by Rule 7(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and, as such, the Indictment does not meet constitutional notice requirements under the Sixth Amendment as to the essential facts of the offenses charged. Specifically, Defendants assert that the Indictment counts are so vague and indefinite that they fail to inform Defendants of the nature or cause of the accusations giving rise to their alleged criminal liability. Additionally, Defendant Kohl argues for dismissal on insufficiency grounds based on the Government’s failure to respond to discovery requests. Kohl Memorandum of Law at 2. An indictment is facially valid and sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense charged, fairly informs a defendant of the charges against which he must defend, and enables a defendant to plead an acquittal or a conviction in bar of further prosecution for the same offense. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S.Ct. 2887, 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); United States v. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 926, 112 S.Ct. 1982, 118 L.Ed.2d 580 (1992); United States v. Ferrara, 701 F.Supp. 39 (E.D.N.Y.1988). An indictment need only track the language of the statute and, if necessary to apprise the defendant of the nature of the accusation against him, state the time and place of the alleged offense in approximate terms. Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 765, 82 S.Ct. 1038, 8 L.Ed.2d 240 (1962); United States v. Covino, 837 F.2d 65, 69 (2d Cir.1988); United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 61 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 840, 104 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed.2d 128 (1983); Ferrara, supra, at 44. The form of an indictment is governed by Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1) which provides that “the indictment ... shall be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” United States v. Macklin, 927 F.2d 1272, 1276 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 847, 112 S.Ct. 146, 116 L.Ed.2d 112 (1991). To satisfy this rule, “[t]he facts alleged must be adequate to permit a defendant to plead former jeopardy upon prosecution. The indictment must also be sufficiently specific to enable the defendant to prepare a defense.” United States v. Carrier, 672 F.2d 300, 303 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1139, 102 S.Ct. 2972, 73 L.Ed.2d 1359 (1982). As such, it is well settled that indictments which track the statutory language defining an offense are, as a general rule, sufficient under Rule 7(c) so long as application to a particular defendant is clear. United States v. Upton, 856 F.Supp. 727, 739 (E.D.N.Y.1994). Additionally, while a bill of particulars cannot cure a constitutionally defective indictment, particularization is appropriate when the indictment is challenged as insufficient to permit the preparation of an adequate defense. Upton, supra, at 740-41. It is well established that an indictment which complies with Rule 7(c) also satisfies the requirements of the Sixth Amendment. Russell, supra, at 763-64, 82 S.Ct. 1038; Upton, supra, at 738; United States v. Abrams, 539 F.Supp. 378, 384 (S.D.N.Y.1982). Specifically, an indictment will satisfy the Sixth Amendment if it “contains the elements of the offense intended to be charged, ‘and sufficiently apprises the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.’ ” Russell, supra, at 763-64, 82 S.Ct. 1038 (quoting Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 431, 52 S.Ct. 417, 76 L.Ed. 861 (1932) (citations omitted)) (emphasis added). While pleading “generic” terms only without the “species” will be insufficient, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 558, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875), an indictment need only apprise the defendant of the nature of the accusation against him “-with reasonable certainty,” and will be sufficient if the language of the statute is charged along with “a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offense ... with which he is charged.” Russell, supra, at 765-66, 82 S.Ct. 1038 (citing cases) (emphasis added). In this case, Defendants claim that Count One fails to state facts supporting the allegations of a conspiracy. Count One charges all nineteen Defendants with conspiracy to distribute and possession with the intent of distributing fifty or more grams of crack cocaine or five or more kilograms of cocaine or fifty or more kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Indictment, Count One. However, conspiracies charged under 21 U.S.C. § 846 are subject to the same pleading rule applicable to the substantive counts as discussed. Macklin, supra, at 1276. Proof of an overt act is not a necessary element to a conspiracy charged under 21 U.S.C. § 846 as “the conspiracy to distribute narcotics is in and of itself a specific crime.” United States v. Bermudez, 526 F.2d 89, 94 (2d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 970, 96 S.Ct. 2166, 48 L.Ed.2d 793 (1976)(citing cases). Additionally, as an indictment is sufficient if it charges the offense using the words of the statute, an indictment under Section 846 “need only allege the existence of a narcotics conspiracy, a relevant time frame, and the statute alleged to be violated.” Macklin, supra, at 1276 (citing United States v. Bermudez, supra, at 94). Further, Rule 7 was satisfied in this case as the Indictment alleges the existence of a conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent of distributing crack cocaine, cocaine or marijuana, the relevant three year time frame during which the alleged conspiracy took place, and the violations of Title 21, Sections 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (B) and (C) (possession with intent to distribute and distribution of narcotics including cocaine and marijuana), 848 (leader of conspiracy), and 853(a) (forfeiture of assets) of the United States Code. Nor is it necessary for the indictment to show that the co-conspirators were fully aware of the details or goals of their venture, but only that they agreed on the essential nature of the plan. United States v. Amiel, 95 F.3d 135, 144 (2d Cir.1996)(discussing factors upon which a conspiracy may be found to exist); United States v. Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42, 63 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 840, 104 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed.2d 128 (1983)(“the coconspirators need not have agreed on the details of the conspiracy, so long as they agree on the essential nature of the plan”); United States v. Rosenblatt, 554 F.2d 36, 40 (2d Cir.1977)(reversing conspiracy conviction on the basis that the indictment which charged a conspiracy to defraud the United States, without more, was insufficient to define the central nature of the conspiratorial plan where the defendants did not agree on the object of the conspiracy). See also United States v. Standard Drywall Corporation, 617 F.Supp. 1283, 1290 (E.D.N.Y.1985) (indictment sufficient where conspiracy to defraud the United States set forth agreed upon plan providing that defendants, among other things, paid employees “off the books” without withholding any deductions). The agreement need not be explicit but may be inferred from facts and circumstances. Amiel, supra, at 144 (citing Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777 n. 10, 95 S.Ct. 1284, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975)). Further, no written statement or even express oral statement is required as a tacit understanding is sufficient to establish a conspiracy for the purposes of a conspiracy conviction. Amiel, supra, at 144 (citing 2 Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 6.4 at 71 (1986)). As such, Defendants’ motions to dismiss Count One as insufficient should be DENIED. Count Two charges Defendant Donald Benjamin with violating 21 U.S.C. § 848, which provides that a sentence of life imprisonment may be assessed against a convicted defendant who is engaged in a “continuing criminal enterprise” and who is found to be “the principal administrator, organizer, or leader of the enterprise or is one of several such principal administrators, organizers, or leaders.” 21 U.S.C. § 848(a) and (b)(1). A person is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise if the charged violations of Subchapter One of Title 21 of the United States Code, which includes Sections 841, 846, and 853, are undertaken by such person in concert with five or more other persons with respect to whom such person occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other position of management, and ... from which such person obtains substantial income or resources. 21 U.S.C. § 848(c)(2)(A) and (B). Here, Count Two specifically charges that during the time period commencing June 1, 1994, and continuing through June 24, 1997, Defendant Donald Benjamin “did knowingly, willfully, intentionally and unlawfully engage in a Continuing Criminal Enterprise” by violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (846) in concert with five or more other persons, with respect to whom the defendant, Donald Benjamin, Jr., a/k/a Ducky, “occupied a position of organizer, supervisor, and manager and from which continuing series of violations, the defendant, Donald Benjamin a/k/a Ducky, obtained substantial income and resources.” Indictment, Count Two. This language sufficiently tracks the language of 21 U.S.C. § 848 such that Defendant Benjamin was adequately apprised of the circumstances and nature of the crimes pending against him. As such, Count Two of the Indictment should not be dismissed on the basis that it is insufficient. Counts Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three all seek forfeiture of “any and all property constituting or derived from any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of said controlled substance violations pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(a)(1).” Indictment, Counts Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three. The criminal forfeiture of property is governed by 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) which provides that any person convicted of a violation of Subchapter One of Title 21 of the United States Code, which includes Sections 841, 846, and 848, shall forfeit to the United States any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation. 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1). Here, the challenged criminal forfeiture counts track the language of 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) almost word-for-word. As all the Defendants who face criminal forfeiture of their property are also charged with participating in the conspiracy under Count One, such Defendants were adequately apprised that the nature and circumstances of the forfeiture charges are attributed to the conspiracy charge. Accordingly, Counts Twenty, Twenty-One, Twenty-Two and Twenty-Three are all sufficient and should not be dismissed. Finally, Counts Three through Nineteen charge violations of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), (B) or (C) which provide, in part, that it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense a controlled substance (§ 841(a)(1)), including five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine (§ 841(b)(1)(A)), or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine (§ 841(b)(1)(B)). Counts Four, Six, Eight, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Seventeen, Eighteen and Nineteen also charge those Defendants named with violating 18 U.S.C. § 2 pursuant to which an aider or abettor of a crime may be charged on the same manner as the principal perpetrator. An indictment that tracks the statutory language defining the offense generally satisfies the requirements that an indictment contain the elements of the offense, notice to the defendant of the charges he must be prepared to meet, and information sufficient to protect the defendant against double jeopardy. United States v. Aliperti, 867 F.Supp. 142, 144 (E.D.N.Y.1994). Here, the counts allege not only the statutory elements, but also identify that date and location where such prohibited conduct occurred. For example, Count Three states in its entirety On or about the 20th day of December, 1995, at Olean, New York, in the Western District of New York and elsewhere, the defendant, Neal Benjamin, did knowingly, intentionally and unlawfully possess with intent to distribute and distribute a quantity of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base, a Schedule II controlled substance; all in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1). Indictment, Count Three. The other counts alleging individual violations of § 841(a)(1) are similar. As such allegations track the language of the statute which the specific Defendant is charged with violating, the court finds the Indictment reasonably apprises Defendants of the circumstances and nature of the charges against them, and also informs Defendants of the time and place of the alleged offenses in approximate terms. Russell, supra, at 765, 82 S.Ct. 1038; Covino, supra, at 69; Bagaric, supra, at 61; Ferrara, supra, at 44. Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to dismiss Counts Three through Nineteen of the Indictment as insufficient should be DENIED. Accordingly, the court finds no basis upon which to grant the Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Indictment for legal insufficiency and the motions should, as to that ground, be DENIED. b. Double Jeopardy Defendant Kohl also argues that the charges against her constitutes double jeopardy as Kohl was already charged with possession of marijuana in violation of state law following her arrest by the Olean Police following the search and seizure on May 23, 1996. Kohl Memorandum of Law (Doc. # 96), filed November 24, 1997, at 4. Although Kohl fails to provide the precise disposition of that matter, she maintains that it was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal, a disposition available under state law. Id. Accordingly, Kohl argues that the current federal charges, premised on the same May 23, 1996 search and seizure which resulted in the state possession of marijuana charge, constitute a violation of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides in relevant part that “[no] person shall be subject for the saíne offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” United States Const. Amend. V, cl. 2. The thrust of Kohl’s argument is that the Government’s subsequent federal prosecution of her based on substantially the same underlying conduct for which Kohl has already received an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal under state law violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Defendant Kohl’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Pretrial Motions (Doc. # 96), filed November 14, 1997, at 4. The doctrine of dual sovereignty, however, recognizes that the state and federal governments are distinct political entities, each of which draws its sovereign power from separate sources of fundamental law. United States v. Davis, 906 F.2d 829, 832 (2d Cir.1990). As such, each sovereign has independent power “to determine what shall be an offense against its authority and to punish such offenses.” Davis, supra, at 832. Accordingly, subsequent prosecution in federal court on substantially similar charges based on the same conduct for which defendant was prosecuted in state court is not barred by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment because the defendant has offended against the law of both sovereigns. Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 89, 106 S.Ct. 433, 88 L.Ed.2d 387 (1985). Even if there were no dual sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause, as the relevant state and instant federal charges are substantively different, no double jeopardy arises. Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)(“where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not”). Kohl’s state offense involved a charge based solely on a single act of possession of marijuana ; the instant federal offenses challenged by Kohl are, under Count One, for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of controlled substances over a period of three years (21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and (B) and 846), as well as, under Count Twelve, a single charge of possession with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2). Prosecution on such offenses involving as they do different elements such as possession with intent to distribute, distribution and conspiracy as to crack cocaine, cocaine and marijuana compared to a charge of simple possession of marijuana without intent to distribute, does not constitute double jeopardy. Blockburger, supra; United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 389-90, 112 S.Ct. 1377, 118 L.Ed.2d 25 (1992) (“The ‘essence’ of a conspiracy offense ‘is in the agreement or confederation to commit a crime’ ”) (quoting United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532, 542, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 91 L.Ed. 1654 (1947)); United States v. Liller, 999 F.2d 61, 63 (2d Cir.1993) (where pending charge covers a broad range of conduct, allegations of the indictment must be examined in addition to the terms of the relevant statutes to determine if the offenses charged are separate). It is well settled that a conspiracy charge with its core element of an agreement to commit a substantive offense is dissimilar for double jeopardy purposes from the object offense. Felix, supra; United States v. Sessa, 125 F.3d 68, 71-72 (2d Cir.1997), cert denied, 522 U.S. 1065, 118 S.Ct. 731, 139 L.Ed.2d 669 (1998); United States v. Gambino, 968 F.2d 227, 231 (2d Cir.1992); United States v. Margiotta, 646 F.2d 729, 733 (2d Cir.1981); United States v. Murray, 618 F.2d 892, 896 (2d Cir.1980). Further, a substantive count charging possession with intent to distribute controlled substances manifestly contains additional elements which a charge of simple possession does not. Blockburger, supra, at 304, 52 S.Ct. 180. Accordingly, dismissal of the Indictment on the ground of double jeopardy should be DENIED. c. Duplicity Defendant Scicchitano moves to dismiss the Indictment on the ground that it is duplicitous as Count One charges him with three separate crimes creating the possibility of conviction despite the potential absence of jury unanimity. Affidavit of Herbert L. Greenman, Esq., attached to Defendant Scicchitano’s Notice of Motion (Doc. # 120), filed December 15, 1997 (“Greenman Affidavit”), ¶¶ 46-48. The Government maintains that Count One is not duplicitous merely on the basis that it charges a conspiracy with more than one criminal objective. Government’s Response, ¶ 45. An indictment is duplicitous if it joins two or more distinct crimes in a single count. United States v. Murray, 618 F.2d 892, 896 (2d Cir.1980). However, a duplicitous indictment, which alleges several offenses in the same count, must be distinguished from “the allegation in a single count of the commission of a crime by several means.” Murray, supra; United States v. Aracri, 968 F.2d 1512, 1518 (2d Cir.1992). It is well established that the allegation in a single count of a conspiracy to commit several crimes is not duplicitous, for the crime charged is the single offense of conspiracy, however diverse its objects. See Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 53, 63 S.Ct. 99, 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942); United States v. Margiotta, 646 F.2d 729, 733 (2d Cir.1981); United States v. Murray, supra. Moreover, “[a] single count is not duplicitous merely because it contains several allegations that could have been stated as separate offenses.” United States v. Sugar, 606 F.Supp. 1134, 1146 (S.D.N.Y.1985). “Acts that could be charged as separate counts in an indictment may instead be charged in a single count if those acts could be characterized as part of a continuing scheme.” United States v. Tutino, 883 F.2d 1125, 1141 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1081, 110 S.Ct. 1139, 107 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1990)(citing Margiotta, supra, at 733); Aracri, supra. Here, the Government has alleged a continuing, ongoing scheme to traffic in controlled substances. According to the Grand Jury, Defendants, including Scicehi-tano carried out the scheme by individual sales of crack cocaine, cocaine and marijuana which was obtained from Defendant Benjamin. To prove the conspiracy, the Government will be required to show that “each alleged member agreed to participate in what he knew to be a collective venture directed toward a common goal.” United States v. Martino, 664 F.2d 860, 876 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1110, 102 S.Ct. 3493, 73 L.Ed.2d 1373 (1982). A single conspiracy is not transformed into multiple conspiracies “merely by virtue of the fact that it may involve two or more phases or spheres of operation, so long as there is sufficient proof of mutual dependence and assistance.” United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 963 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1211, 111 S.Ct. 2811, 115 L.Ed.2d 984 (1991). All the individual counts with which the Defendants are charged are evidence upon which the jury may determine that the conspiracy was ongoing and its objective was to traffic in each of those types of narcotics as alleged, in violation of federal law. Accordingly, the court finds that Count One charges a single narcotics trafficking conspiracy accomplished through actions of the individual Defendants’ actions in possessing and distributing crack cocaine, cocaine and marijuana and is, therefore, not duplicitous. See Aracri, supra. As such, the motion to dismiss should be DENIED. d. Introduction of Improper Evidence to the Grand Jury Defendant Benjamin also argues the Indictment should be dismissed as it is based on evidence derived from improper electronic communication intercepts which has “seriously impaired the integrity of the grand jury in this case.” Affidavit of Vincent E. Doyle, III, Esq., attached to Defendant Donald Benjamin’s Pre-Trial Motions (Doc. # 119), filed December 12, 1997 (“Doyle Affidavit”), ¶48. However, the court does not find that the challenged electronic communication intercepts were improper. See Discussion, infra, at 35^48. Moreover, a federal Indictment may not be dismissed on the ground that inadmissible evidence was presented. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 363-64, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (1956); United States v. Casamento, 887 F.2d 1141, 1182 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1081, 110 S.Ct. 1138, 107 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1990). As such, the Dismissal of the Indictment on this ground should be DENIED. 2. Suppression of Evidence Seized Pursuant to Search Warrants Defendants Wilson, Ingénito and Scic-chitano challenge the federal search warrants on the basis they were issued without probable cause. Defendants Wilson, Kohl and Friel similarly challenge the state search warrants. The federal search warrant is also challenged as overly broad. As a threshold matter, the court notes that all of the Defendants moving to suppress evidence on the basis the warrants were issued without probable cause have standing to contest such warrants as they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place searched. See Affirmation of Marianne Mariano, Esq., attached to Defendant Wilson’s Notice of Motion (Doc. # 118), filed December 12, 1997 (“Mariano Affirmation”), p. 3 (search of residence at Seneca Avenue, Olean, New York); Defendant Ingenito’s Pretrial Motions (Doc. # 138), filed December 31, 1997, p. 13 (search of residence at 457 \ North Union Street, Olean, New York); Greenman Affidavit, ¶ 17 (search of business, Double Nickel Auto, at 1712 East State Road, Olean, New York). New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 699, 107 S.Ct. 2636, 96 L.Ed.2d 601 (1987)(holding the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches apples to commercial premises as well as to private homes). The Government has not argued otherwise. a. Federal Search Warrants Federal search warrants were issued by the undersigned on June 27, 1997, authorizing the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) to search three premises located in Olean, New York, specifically, the residences of Defendant Wilson, and of Defendant Ingénito, and the business operated by Defendant Scicchitano, Double Nickel Auto. Defendants Scicchitano and Ingénito argue that the search warrants were issued without probable cause. Affidavit of Herbert L. Greenman, Esq., attached to Defendant Scicchitano’s Notice of Motion (Doc. # 120), filed December 15, 1997, ¶ 31; Defendant Ingenito’s Pretrial Motions (Doc. # 138), filed December 31, 1997, Schedule 4, p. 13. Scicchitano also maintains the search warrant for his business is invalid as it fails to properly limit the scope of the search, resulting in the authorization of a constitutionally impermissible general, exploratory search. Greenman Affidavit, ¶ 17. 1. Probable Cause for Federal Search Warrants As standing to challenge the search warrants is not at issue, Defendants contend the search warrants were issued without probable cause. In Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), the Supreme Court set forth the “totality of the circumstances” test for the determination of probable cause under the Fourth Amendment. The issuing judicial officer must “make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Gates, supra, at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960)). The quantum of proof necessary to establish probable cause is “only the probability, and not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity .... ” Gates, supra (quoting Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 419, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969)). The same thirty page affidavit provided by DEA Special Agent James M. McGill (“McGill Affidavit”) was provided in support of the applications for each of the search warrants issued by the undersigned on May 27, 1997. That affidavit contains sufficient information to support a finding of probable cause. McGill’s affidavit, which is based on information provided by five confidential informants, provides numerous details of the charged narcotics trafficking conspiracy. CS-1 provided information about the organization of the conspiracy, reporting that Benjamin discussed drug trafficking and financial matters with him on a continuing basis. McGill Affidavit, ¶ 7. According to information received from CS-1, Benjamin, the alleged leader of the drug trafficking operation, operates a garbage removal business as a cover for his drug trafficking. Id., ¶ 9. Benjamin trusts Defendant Jeff Evans whom he treats “like a brother” because while Jeff Evans’s brother Todd Evans “has a very bad crack habit.” Jeff Evans does not use drugs. Id. CS-1 reported that upon obtaining the powdered cocaine, Benjamin would “cook it up” into crack cocaine which would then be hidden in rural areas around Clean until it could be distributed and sold. Id., ¶ 8. CS-1 told McGill that Defendant Benjamin had an agreement whereby Defendant Scicchitano provided Benjamin with use of a different vehicle each month from Scicchitano’s automobile dealership, Double Nickel Auto, to make the trips to Buffalo and New York City to purchase drugs. Id., ¶¶ 4, 9. In return, Scicchitano received a regular supply of drugs from Benjamin. Id., ¶¶ 4,9. CS-1 also advised that Defendants Wilson and Ingénito were the financial backers of Benjamin’s drug trafficking business. Id., ¶ 10. This confidential informant testified before the Grand Jury which indicted Benjamin, Wilson, Ingénito and Scicchitano on federal drug trafficking charges prior to the issuance of the search warrant. Id., ¶¶ 5,6. Much of the Benjamin’s drug trafficking activity was also detailed by the other confidential informants. CS-2 connected Wilson and Ingénito directly to Benjamin’s drug conspiracy and reported that he had accompanied Benjamin on several trips to obtain cocaine and that CS-2 participated in the distribution of the drugs. Id., ¶¶ 13, 14, 16. After obtaining cocaine from suppliers in Buffalo or New York City, Benjamin reportedly would pay others $50 for use of their homes to “cook it up.” Id., ¶ 13. CS-3 provided information pertaining to Benjamin’s use of three young males to distribute cocaine because Benjamin believed they would be treated with leniency if caught. McGill Affidavit, ¶21. CS-3 also gave information pertaining to Benjamin’s weekly earnings from the drug trafficking and also indicated that Defendants Wilson and Ingénito were Benjamin’s financial backers. Id., ¶¶ 23-24. CS-4 reported that he regularly purchased marijuana and crack cocaine from Defendants Benjamin and Wilson, occasionally tendering food stamps as payment. • McGill Affidavit, ¶¶ 26-27. CS-4 also reported he had accompanied Benjamin on trips to Buffalo where Benjamin purchased crack cocaine from an individual who operated a “Bronco type” vehicle. Id., ¶ 27. CS-5 specifically recalled that Wilson . held cash proceeds directly from drug trafficking for Benjamin in envelopes kept in a cigar box in Wilson’s restaurant. McGill Affidavit, ¶ 38. Benjamin avoided having large quantities of crack cocaine within Olean’s city limits as he feared he would be subjected to a search warrant there. Id., ¶42. CS-5 also directly connected Defendant Scicchitano’s auto sales business with the Benjamin narcotics conspiracy. Id., ¶¶ 44, 45. Further, on several occasions Benjamin employed violence in furtherance of the drug trafficking conspiracy. Id., ¶¶ 42, 48. Three of the five confidential informants reportedly were participants in the conspiracy. CS-2 was dealing drugs since 1992 for Defendant Benjamin who would provide CS-2 with up to one ounce of cocaine to sell at one time. McGill Affidavit, ¶¶ 12, 14. Benjamin often sent someone to CS-2’s home to pick up cash from cocaine sales and to drop off more cocaine for CS-2 to sell. Id., ¶ 14. CS-2 would often accompany Benjamin on trips to Buffalo to pick up cocaine and, upon returning to the Olean area, assisted Benjamin in “cooking up” the cocaine into crack cocaine. Id., ¶¶ 13. CS-2 also stated that he sold crack cocaine to Defendant Wilson between six and twelve times. Id., ¶ 17. CS-3 reportedly picked up crack cocaine under the direction of Benjamin from Defendant Jeff Evans twice a week. McGill Affidavit, ¶ 19. Later, Evans would pick up the proceeds from CS-3’s cocaine sales from CS-3’s residence. Id., ¶ 20. CS-3 reported average weekly earnings of $1,000 and $2,000 from selling cocaine for Benjamin. Id., ¶ 23. CS-5 reported that he began selling marijuana obtained from Defendant Benjamin “several years ago.” McGill Affidavit, ¶ 31. CS-5 also reported that as a result of such activity, he was arrested and incarcerated in connection with a drug transaction. Id. However, as CS-5 refused to cooperate with law enforcement officials with regard to that charge and conviction, CS-5 earned Benjamin’s trust and, upon release, was given a job selling crack cocaine for Benjamin. Id., at ¶ 32. CS-5 also reported that he supplied drugs daily to a restauranteur named Terry Williams who permitted CS-5 to sell drugs from his restaurant. Id., ¶ 40. CS-5 also reported that on one occasion he and Defendant Evans cut a quantity of crack cocaine for distribution at a trailer located in Hins-dale, New York. Id., ¶ 42. The undersigned was entitled to credit the information provided by the confidential sources because CS-2, CS-3 and CS-5 had made admissions against penal interest. United States v. Morales, 788 F.2d 883, 885 (2d Cir.1986)(admission against interest may be considered in probable cause determination), and had testified before the grand jury which had returned an indictment. United States v. Contreras, 776 F.2d 51, 54 (2d Cir.1985)(“an indictment returned by a duly constituted and unbiased grand jury satisfies the Constitution as to the existence of probable cause the defendant committed the crimes enumerated therein”)(eiting Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, 349, 78 S.Ct. 311, 2 L.Ed.2d 321 (1958)). Significantly, many of the details of the drug conspiracy provided by one confidential informant were corroborated by the testimony of at least one other confidential informant. For example, all five confidential informants reported that Benjamin made numerous trips from Olean to Buffalo and New York City where Benjamin obtained cocaine and marijuana which Benjamin then repackaged for resale in the Olean area. McGill Affidavit, ¶¶ 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18, 22, 33, 34, 42, 43, 46. All five of the confidential informants also identified Defendant Wilson as a financial backer of the drug trafficking operation, Id., ¶¶ 4, 7, 10, 15, 16, 24, 27, 37, 38, and three of the five also identified Defendant Ingén-ito as another financial backer. Id., ¶¶ 10, 16, 24. Two of the five confidential informants identified Defendant Jeff Evans as Benjamin’s most trusted associate for the reason that Jeff Evans did not use drugs. Id., ¶¶ 7, 36. Two of the confidential informants supplied information regarding Benjamin’s hiding places for the drugs along the railroad tracks in rural areas outside Olean city limits once they had been cooked up and repackaged for further distribution. Id., ¶¶ 8, 33, 42. Additionally, this judicial officer properly inferred based on McGill’s experience that as members of the narcotics conspiracy, Ingenito’s and Wilson’s residences and Scicchitano’s place of business would contain evidence of narcotics trafficking. United States v. Riley, 906 F.2d 841, 845 (2d Cir.1990); United States v. Fama, 758 F.2d 834, 838 (2d Cir.1985)(agent’s expert opinion is an important factor to be considered by judicial officer with regard to warrant application and should also be considered in determining whether warrant was executed in good faith). Thus, the McGill affidavit provides sufficient probable cause to support all three search warrants issued by the undersigned on June 27, 1997. Further, even if it were assumed that there was an absence of probable cause, no Defendant provides any reason to believe that the warrants and their fruits would not also qualify for the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). 2. Scope of Federal Search Warrant Defendant Scicchitano also argues that the scope of the search warrant was overly broad and “sweeping,” and therefore authorized a general search in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. Greenman Affidavit, ¶ 17. It is basic that a search warrant must describe with particularity “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” U.S. Const. Amend IV, to prevent a “general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings.” Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). Depending on the circumstances, a warrant need not specifically describe the items to be seized provided the officers .seeking the warrant “have acquired all the descriptive facts which a reasonable investigation could be expected to cover, and have assured that all those facts were included in the warrant.” United States v. Young, 745 F.2d 733, 759 (2d Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1084, 105 S.Ct. 1842, 85 L.Ed.2d 142 (1985). A warrant is sufficiently particular under the Constitution if it enables the executing officer to ascertain and identify with reasonable certainty those items that the issuing magistrate has authorized him to seize. United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72, 75 (2d Cir.1992)(citing Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987)). The particularity requirement renders a general search under a warrant “impossible and prevents the seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another. As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant.” Marron v. United States, 275 U.S. 192, 196, 48 S.Ct. 74, 72 L.Ed. 231 (1927); see also Young, supra, at 758. “Mere reference to ‘evidence’ of a violation of a broad criminal statute or general criminal activity provides no readily ascertainable guidelines for the executing officers as to what items to seize.” George, supra, at 76 (citing cases). However, the absence of a precise description of the items to be seized does not necessarily invalidate the search warrant provided such warrants identify the specific illegal activity to which the items relate. George, supra, at 76 (citing Young, supra, at 758; United States v. Dunloy, 584 F.2d 6, 8 (2d Cir.1978); United States v. Scharfman, 448 F.2d 1352, 1353 n. 1 (2d Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 919, 92 S.Ct. 944, 30 L.Ed.2d 789 (1972)). In George, supra, the court considered the validity of a search warrant which described in detail particular items taken during an armed robbery as well as “other evidence relating to the commission of a crime.” George, supra, at 74. The court held that the authorization of a search for “evidence of a crime” was so broad as to constitute a general warrant. George, supra, at 76 (emphasis added). The court further held that the reference in the warrant to the law enforcement officer’s sufficiently specific affidavit submitted in support of the warrant would not “cure” the improperly broad warrant unless such reference specifically directed “the executing officers to refer to the affidavit for guidance concerning the scope of the search.” George, supra, at 76. The court does not find that the search warrant authorizing the search of Defendant Scicchitano’s business was impermissibly broad. First, such search warrant specifically describes the place to be searched as “1712 East State Road, Olean, New York, a single story building, brown in color with yellow trim, bearing a sign ‘Double Nickel Auto’ on the front.” Search Warrant for 1712 East State Street, Olean, New York. The warrant also describes with particularity the type of criminal activity the commission of which evidence is sought. Specifically, the warrant authorizes the executing officer to seize “quantities of controlled substances, cash, books, receipts, ledgers and other documents and records all of which are contraband, evidence or fruits and instrumentalities of the commission of a criminal offense under Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841, 846 and 848.” Search Warrant for 1712 East State Road, Olean. Such description, given the fact that the warrant was issued to assist in the investigation of a narcotics trafficking conspiracy, was sufficiently particular and did not permit a general search. United States v. Washington, 48 F.3d 73, 77-78 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1151, 115 S.Ct. 2596, 132 L.Ed.2d 843 (1995)(upholding as sufficiently particular search warrant issued in connection with cocaine trafficking conspiracy which authorized seizure “any and all” (1) forms of cocaine or unlawfully possessed regulated drugs, (2) drug paraphernalia, (3) papers, records, receipts, documentation, telephone lists and records which may be related to illicit drug activity, (4) money acquired through illicit drug activities and (5) firearms and ammunition used to facilitate and/or protect the illicit drug dealing and records of firearm purchases); Riley, 906 F.2d at 844(upholding as sufficiently particular search warrant authorizing seizure of “evidence of the offense of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, namely cocaine, and marijuana, firearms, instrumentalities of cocaine and marijuana distribution such as scales, dilution or ‘cut’ materials, packaging materials, telephone and/or address books and lists, telephone toll records, records of the distribution of cocaine including records of distribution made and/or payments given or received, the investment of proceeds of drug trafficking in tangible or intangible objects and things, including but not limited to, bank records, brokerage house records, business records, safety deposit box keys or records and other items that constitute evidence of the offenses of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of the same”). Here, as the items seized include narcotics, cash and various records of narcotics trafficking, the challenged warrant does not authorize an open-ended search for “evidence” of an unstated crime. Further, the executing agents were entitled to use their experience in investigating such criminal activity to make informed judgments as to whether a particular type of record is one related to narcotics activity. Riley, supra, at 844-45 (officer executing search warrant permitted to exercise judgment as to whether particular document or item is within the described category for which seizure has been authorized). Defendant Scicchitano cites several cases in support of his motion to suppress including Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York, 442 U.S. 319, 99 S.Ct. 2319, 60 L.Ed.2d 920 (1979); United States v. Bianco, 998 F.2d 1112 (2d Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1069, 114 S.Ct. 1644, 128 L.Ed.2d 364 (1994); George, supra; United States v. Stubbs, 873 F.2d 210 (9th Cir.1989); and United States v. Washington, 797 F.2d 1461 (9th Cir.1986). However, a careful reading of those cases reveals they are all distinguishable from the instant case. In Lo-Ji Sales, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of an “open-ended” search warrant issued in connection with an investigation of a violation of New York’s obscenity law, and which authorized seizure of “[t]he following items that the court independently [on examination] as determined to be possessed in violation of’ the state’s obscenity law. Lo-Ji Sales, supra, at 321-22, 99 S.Ct. 2319. Significantly, no specific items were listed or described following the authorizing statement. Id. Instead, the issuing judge accompanied the law enforcement officers while they executed the search warrant in an adult film and magazine store and made on-the-spot determinations as to whether specific items on the shelves of the store constituted obscene material. Id. The search warrant was later amended to reflect the specific items seized. Id. Here, although the search warrant describes the individual items to be seized in somewhat generic terms, neither is it an “open-ended” warrant. In Bianco, the court found that a challenged search warrant was invalid on the basis that such warrant included neither a specific description of the precise items to be seized nor the possible crimes involved. Bianco, supra, at 1116. However, the court ultimately upheld the validity of the search warrant finding that all the parties involved in the warrant were advised of the scope of the warrant prior to its execution. Bianco, supra, at 1116-17. Likewise, in George, the court’s finding that a search warrant was impermissibly broad turned on the inclusion in such warrant permission to search for “evidence of a crime,” without any limitation on the executing officer’s discretion. George, supra, at 76. In the instant case, however, the warrant plainly states that it authorizes seizure of evidence pertaining to the “commission of a criminal offense under Title 21, United States Code, Section 841, 846 and 848.” As such, the stated crimes reasonably define the scope of the evidence for which seizure was sought as to evidence related to drug distribution and the executing officers’ discretion was therefore sufficiently circumscribed. Washington, 48 F.3d 73, supra; Riley, supra. The search warrant challenged in Stubbs, supra, pertained to an investigation of tax evasion where, although the Internal Revenue Service agents seeking the warrant knew specifically what documents they wanted to seize and where such documents could be found, they failed to either include such information in the warrant or to explain why such information could not be included. Stubbs, supra, at 211. In the instant case, Scicchitano does not assert the agents knew specifically what evidence was sought or was likely to be found. Moreover, what the agents applying for the warrant subjectively knew, but failed to include in the warrant application or to tell the issuing magistrate, is not decisive. Rather, the scope of a search warrant is sufficiently particularized so long as “all parties involved are informed of the scope and limits upon the authorized search.” See Bianco, supra, at 1116-17 (citing cases). Finally, in Washington, the court found a search warrant pertaining to the search of a business overly broad insofar as it authorized the seizure of evidence of association between the suspect and any other person without establishing probable cause that such people were involved in any criminal activity. Washington, supra, at 1473. Unlike the warrant successfully challenged in Washington, the warrant here does not authorize seizure of items based on a vague standard of Scicchitano’s association with other persons. Rather, the warrant is specifically directed to items “which are contraband, evidence or fruits and instrumentalities of the commission of a criminal offense under Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841, 846 and 848.” Search Warrant for 1712 East State Street, Olean, New York. Thus, Defendant Scicchitano’s motion to suppress evidence on the ground that the search warrant is overly broad should be DENIED. b. State Search Warrants On May 15, 1996, the Honorable William H. Mountain, III, Olean City Court Judge, issued a search warrant authorizing the search of the residence of Defendants Jamie Friel and Kim Kohl, located at 216 East Pine Street, Olean, New York. Search Warrant, Exhibit B to Pretrial Motions of Defendant Kim Kohl (Doc. # 95), filed November 14, 1997. Defendant Kohl has challenged this warrant on the ground that it was issued without probable cause. Specifically, Defendant Kohl maintains that the application for the search warrant indicates that it was issued based on in camera testimony presented by the applicant, Investigator Randy Langdon, which testimony was preserved. Affidavit of Gerald T. Walsh, Esq., attached to Pretrial Motions of Defendant Kim Kohl (Doc. #95), filed November 14, 1997 (“Walsh Affidavit”), ¶ 11. Defendant Kohl further requested disclosure of such testimony, arguing that such information is needed to establish her claim that the search warrant was issued based on false and misleading statements. Id., ¶ 13. On April 23, 1997, Judge Mountain also issued a state search warrant authorizing the search of a business owned by Defendant Wilson, known as “Big Ron’s,” located at 330 North 1st Street, Olean, New York. Search Warrant, Exhibit A to Defendant Wilson’s Notice of Motion (Doc. # 118), filed December 12, 1997. Defendant Wilson argues that the application for the state search warrant was a form application which, on its face, is devoid of probable cause. Mariano Affirmation, ¶8. Defendant Wilson has not, for the present, challenged the warrant on the basis of probable cause but, rather, has requested disclosure of the recorded in camera testimony given in support of such search warrant. Mariano Affirmation, ¶ 9. Wilson reserved his right to move to suppress the search warrant once such information is received. Id., ¶ 11. The Government, at this court’s direction, provided to this court the in camera portions of the applications made before Judge Mountain by Investigator Langdon with regard to 216 East Pine Street, Olean and by Investigators Lang-don and Slavinsky to with regard to 330 North 1st Street, Olean, see Background, supra, at 5, but has refused to provide copies to Defendants. Id. 1. Failure to Provide Affidavits Defendant Kohl attacks the state search warrant on the ground that the application makes no reference “to any sworn allegations of the alleged informant or of any indication of the reliability or veracity of any information provided by the informant.” Walsh Affidavit, ¶ 11. Defendant Kohl maintains that the affidavits of the Investigators Langdon should have been included in the search warrant application and that the failure to provide Defendant Kohl with such affidavits indicates that the statements contained in the warrant application were false or misleading. Id., ¶ 9. Defendant Kohl’s contentions must be rejected as the failure to provide a defendant with affidavits does not infer the affidavits were, for that reason, untrue. Moreover, here the court determined, based upon the in camera submissions, that no affidavits containing the specifics of the investigator’s information in support of the "search warrant were filed with Judge Mountain. Rather, the warrant was issued based primarily on in camera testimony given by Investigator Langdon before Judge Mountain, a tape recording of which this court has reviewed. Such procedure is permitted under both state and federal law. See N.Y.Crim. Proc. Law §§ 690.35(1) and 690.36 (McKinney 1995); Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(c)(1). Accordingly, Defendants’ motions to suppress should be DENIED on this ground. 2. Franks v. Delaware Hearing Defendant Kohl has also moved for a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), on the ground that the affidavits incorporated into the search warrant issued by Judge Mountain for her residence at 216 East Pine Street, Olean, contained false or misleading statements or omissions and therefore was issued without probable cause. Walsh Affidavit, ¶¶ 9-12. The Government maintains that such hearing is required only where statements or omissions necessary to support a finding of probable cause have been challenged and that no such challenge has been made here. Government’s Response, ¶ 54. The Government further argues that a Franks hearing may not be held to challenge the conclusions drawn by an investigator in his affidavit made in support of the warrant. Government’s Response, ¶ 55. Although Kohl has challenged the search warrant issued by Judge Mountain as without probable cause, this court nevertheless finds no Franks hearing is warranted. Under Franks, evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant based on materially false and misleading information is not admissible absent a hearing at which it is determined whether, setting aside the false statements, sufficient independent evidence was presented to the judicial officer such that the warrant was, notwithstanding the tainted information, issued on probable cause. Franks, supra, at 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674. A defendant is entitled to a hearing to test the truthfulness of a search warrant’s underlying affidavits “only upon a ‘substantial preliminary showing’ that (1) the affidavit contained false statements made knowingly or intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth; and (2) the challenged statements or omissions were necessary to the [issuing officer’s] probable cause finding.” United States v. Levasseur, 816 F.2d 37, 43 (2d Cir.1987)(quoting Franks, supra, at 171-72, 98 S.Ct. 2674). Additionally, although an affidavit in support of a search warrant application may contain “both lawful and tainted allegations,” a search warrant issued on the basis of such affidavit remains valid if probable cause is found based on an independent consideration of only the lawful information contained in the affidavit. Franks, supra, at 170-71, 98 S.Ct. 2674; United States v. Ferguson, 758 F.2d 843, 849 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 841, 106 S.Ct. 124, 88 L.Ed.2d 102 (1985). Franks has been limited to the statements contained in the affidavit based on the investigator’s personal knowledge and does not extend to the information the informant may have provided to the applicant. “In Leon, the Supreme Court emphasized that ‘the deference accorded to a magistrate’s finding of probable cause does not preclude inquiry into the knowing or reckless falsity of the affidavit on which the determination was based.’ United States v. Reilly, 76 F.3d 1271, 1280 (2d Cir.1996)(quoting United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), and citing Franks, supra, at 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674). There can be no reasonable grounds for believing that a warrant was properly issued “[i]f the magistrate or judge in issuing the warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard of the truth.” Leon, supra, at 923, 104 S.Ct. 3405. A search warrant may not, however, be challenged under Franks on the ground that an informant knowingly or recklessly made a false statement to an affiant so long as the affiant in good faith accurately represents what the informant said unless the informant is a government official. United States v. Wapnick, 60 F.3d 948, 956 (2d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1187, 116 S.Ct. 1672, 134 L.Ed.2d 776 (1996). Based on this court’s review of the in camera proceedings before Judge Mountain, the court finds Investigator Langdon had relied to a substantial degree upon activity of a confidential informant who had made drug purchases at the Friel-Kohl residence and there is no basis to believe such informant were government officials. Therefore, even-if the information provided by the investigator as the applicant could be subjected to scrutiny under Franks, the information provided by the informant is not subject to the Franks test. Accordingly, there is no basis for a Franks hearing and Defendants’ request for such a hearing is, therefore, DENIED. 3. The State Search Warrants Were Based on Probable Cause As noted, the Government has provided the court with copies of the information presented to Judge Mountain in support of both state warrants. This court’s in camera review of such information reveals that the warrants were issued on probable cause. An official authorized to issue a search warrant reviews the supporting affidavit for probable cause by reviewing the “totality of the circumstances” enumerated in the affidavit. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 231-32, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). “The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had ‘a substantial basis for .... concluding]’ that probable cause existed.” Id., at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 271, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960)),overruled on other grounds by United States v. Salvucci 448 U.S. 83, 84, 100 S.Ct. 2547, 65 L.Ed