Miller v. State

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion. In the Supreme Court of Georgia No. S26A0374 Ronnie Miller v. The State On Appeal from the Superior Court of DeKalb County No. 23CR1726 Decided: July 1, 2026 ELLINGTON, Justice. Ronnie Miller appeals his convictions for malice murder and other crimes in connection with the shooting death of Tesfaye Birru. 1 Miller contends that the trial court erred in denying his 1 The crimes occurred on February 19, 2020. A DeKalb County grand jury initially indicted Miller on December 1, 2020, and later re-indicted him together with Ricky Character on March 21, 2023, for malice murder (Count 1), felony murder (Count 2), criminal attempt to commit armed robbery (Count 4), aggravated assault (Count 5), and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 7) and re-indicted Miller alone for an additional count of felony murder (Count 3) and for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (Count 6). At the conclusion of a joint trial that began on June 20, 2024, a jury found Miller and Character guilty on all of their respectively charged counts. On July 9, 2024, the trial court sentenced Miller to life in prison without the possibility of parole for malice murder (Count 1). The felony murder counts (Counts 2 and 3) were vacated by operation of law, and the trial court merged the aggravated assault count (Count 5) into the conviction for malice murder (Count 1). The trial court imposed 30 years in prison for the criminal attempt to commit armed robbery (Count 4), to run consecutively to Count 1; ten years in prison for the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon motion to suppress evidence that he argues was seized without probable cause as a result of misrepresentations or false statements made by the police in multiple warrant affidavits. He also contends that the trial court’s order allowing a substitute expert witness to testify violated his Sixth Amendment right under the United States Constitution to confront witnesses against him. For the reasons below, we vacate the judgment of the trial court as to the denial of the motion to suppress and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Because we vacate and remand on the motion to suppress issue, we do not reach Miller’s other enumeration regarding expert witness testimony. 1. Facts The evidence presented at trial showed the following. On February 19, 2020, Birru owned the “Tic Toc” convenience store (Count 6), to run consecutively to Count 5; and five years in prison for the possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (Count 7), to run consecutively to Count 6. Although Miller does not raise the issue on appeal, the trial court erred when it imposed the prison sentence for the Count 6 conviction to run consecutively to Count 5, which had already been merged into Count 1. See Adams v. State, 323 Ga. 279, 287–88 (2026) (vacating the sentence on a count that was imposed to run consecutively to the sentence on another count that this Court vacated). We note this potential sentencing error for the trial court’s consideration on remand if it does not become moot following the trial court’s new ruling. Miller timely filed a motion for new trial by trial counsel on July 12, 2024, and new counsel filed a brief in support of the motion on July 31, 2025. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion for new trial on August 21, 2025. Miller filed a timely notice of appeal, and the case was docketed in this Court to the term beginning in December 2025 and submitted for a decision on the briefs. 2 in DeKalb County. Around 10:00 p.m. while Birru was attempting to lock the store for the night, a masked assailant ambushed Birru and shot him. As Birru was lying on the ground, a second assailant approached and shot him once in the head before the assailants fled. Surveillance footage from the Tic Toc convenience store, a nearby Citgo gas station, and a Microtel hotel situated behind Tic Toc showed the assailants’ movements prior to, and immediately after, the shooting and depicted the following. At 9:36 p.m., a red sedan pulled up to a pump at the Citgo gas station before pulling out and heading in the direction of Tic Toc. At 9:40 p.m., in much grainier video footage, a vehicle pulled into the entrance of the Microtel with its lights off and backed into a parking space, with the front of the car pointed in the direction of Tic Toc. At 9:58 p.m., the first assailant emerged from the car parked in the Microtel parking lot and ran across the lot toward Tic Toc. Seconds later, two more people exited the same car and began walking toward the store before one can be seen suddenly running toward the store. The first assailant — wearing a camouflage jacket with a hoodie underneath, dark pants, black and blue shoes, and gloves in his back pocket — approached the store, “creeping” around the left corner of the building to hide behind the ice machine next to the store’s entrance. When Birru exited his store and began to lock the door, the first assailant emerged from behind the ice machine and shot Birru. That assailant then ran behind the convenience store in the direction of the Microtel. Moments later, as Birru lay on the ground, a second assailant — wearing a gray hoodie, dark pants, and red shoes — approached from the left corner of the building and fired one shot into Birru’s head before running back in the direction of the Microtel. About one minute 3 after the assailants were first seen emerging from the car in the Microtel parking lot, two assailants ran back toward the parked car at the Microtel, and a few seconds later, the third person from the car — who never made it over to the store or near the victim — also ran across the parking lot to the car. After the three assailants got in the car, the car pulled out of the Microtel parking lot and drove away. Around 10:30 p.m. that night, law enforcement responded to the scene and located six 9mm cartridge casings and one .40- caliber cartridge casing. Out of the collected 9mm casings, one was Hornady brand, three were RP brand, and two were PMC brand. After reviewing surveillance footage, law enforcement determined that the red-colored Honda or Chevy vehicle that was seen pulling up to the Citgo gas pump before heading in the direction of Tic Toc was the suspects’ vehicle. The investigation was not developing any significant leads at that time, so law enforcement held a press conference. The following day, law enforcement received information that directed the investigation toward Miller. Law enforcement identified Miller’s address and found that a 2017 Chevy Impala was registered to that address, and from his driver’s license information, law enforcement identified a phone number associated with Miller ending in -8355. After receiving Miller’s name during the investigation, law enforcement discovered a pre-existing “be on the lookout” or “BOLO” depicting Miller’s face, connected to an alleged armed robbery that occurred at an Exxon gas station in Rockdale County on January 13, 2020, more than a month before the February Tic Toc shooting. The BOLO from that January 2020 robbery contained still images of Miller that were taken from the surveillance footage of the incident. The footage showed Miller 4 arrive at the Rockdale Exxon approximately 30 minutes before closing, exit his burgundy Chevy Impala, enter the store, purchase a drink, and leave. The footage showed that, approximately 30 minutes later, after the store manager locked up for the night, three masked men — one wearing a camo jacket — approached the store manager at gunpoint. The manager of that Exxon testified that the men ordered him to give them money from the register and that one man hit him in the face with the gun. The manager testified that he recognized the voice of one of the armed robbers as the same voice of the customer who purchased a drink about 30 minutes prior — a man later identified as Miller. After reviewing the surveillance footage from the January 2020 Exxon robbery, law enforcement took out an arrest warrant for Miller in connection with its investigation of the February 2020 Tic Toc shooting and arrested him the next day. Law enforcement executed a search warrant at Miller’s home and located a box of PMC 9mm live ammunition. Law enforcement executed a search warrant for Miller’s red sedan and located a camouflage jacket, a blue and black shoe, gloves, a camo mask, and two cell phones. Pursuant to multiple search warrants, law enforcement performed extractions of the two phones associated with Miller: one a Samsung SM-A505U (ending with number - 8355) and, the other, a Samsung Galaxy G920T (ending with number -9710). The extraction of the -9710 phone revealed a contact listed as “Rarri” with a phone number ending in -6516 and another contact listed as “Ronnie” with the phone number matching the - 8355 phone. At some point during the investigation, law enforcement developed a lead regarding a second suspect, Miller’s co-defendant, Character. The call logs of Miller’s -9710 cell phone 5 showed several calls made to and received from “Rarri” (phone number ending in -6516) on the night of the shooting: three outgoing calls to “Rarri” between 8:20 p.m. and 8:36 p.m. and an incoming missed call from “Rarri” at 10:52 p.m. Law enforcement connected the -6516 phone to Character. Law enforcement also obtained a search warrant for the phone records for the -6516 phone number that was associated with Character and, from those records, located an Instagram account linked to Character and the -6516 phone number. Law enforcement obtained a search warrant for the Instagram account linked to Character which revealed messages between Character’s account and another account on the day of the shooting and the day after the shooting indicating that the “move didn’t go right.” Agent James Berni with the FBI Cellular Analysis Survey Team analyzed the cell tower location data of the three cell phones and testified that the two phones associated with Miller and the phone associated with Character used cell phone towers that were in close proximity to Tic Toc between 9:41 p.m. and 10:22 p.m. on the night of the February 19, 2020, shooting there and had similar movement patterns that night. Similarly, the - 9710 phone associated with Miller and the -6516 phone associated with Character were both in close proximity to the Exxon gas station on the night of the January 13, 2020, armed robbery there and had similar movement patterns that night as well. 2. Analysis Miller contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because over a dozen searches during the investigation were authorized only as the result of law enforcement including multiple “false statements,” “lies,” and reckless misrepresentations or “overstatements” in the warrant 6 affidavits. Additionally, he argues that the trial court erroneously considered law enforcement’s “post-h[o]c explanations” of the misrepresentations from the investigators’ testimony at the motion to suppress hearing when determining that probable cause existed at the time the magistrate judges reviewed the affidavits. Because the trial court failed to engage in a proper analysis of whether the false statements included in the warrant affidavits were made knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth under Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154 (1978), we vacate the trial court’s order, remand, and direct the trial court to conduct the proper analysis. (a) Legal Framework “When reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we review the trial court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo.” State v. Mickel, 321 Ga. 751, 757 (2025) (quotation marks omitted). In reviewing such a ruling, we keep “in mind that a magistrate’s decision to issue a search warrant based on a finding of probable cause is entitled to substantial deference by a reviewing court.” Palmer v. State, 310 Ga. 668, 672 (2021). “A search warrant will issue only based upon an oath or affirmation stating facts sufficient to show probable cause that a crime is being committed or has been committed.” State v. Britton, 316 Ga. 283, 286 (2023). When reviewing an affidavit to determine if probable cause exists to issue a search warrant, a magistrate judge’s task “is simply to make a practical, common- sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, ... there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Shirley v. State, 297 Ga. 722, 723–24 (2015). See also Copeland v. State, 314 Ga. 44, 49 (2022) (“The probable cause test 7 requires only a fair probability—less than a certainty but more than a mere suspicion of possibility—which by no means is to be equated with proof by even so much as a preponderance of the evidence.” (quotation marks omitted)). And in analyzing probable cause, “a magistrate may draw ‘reasonable inferences … from the material supplied to him by applicants for a warrant.’” Taylor v. State, 303 Ga. 57, 61 (2018) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 US 213, 240 (1983)). In Franks v. Delaware, the United States Supreme Court held that, “where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause,” the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides the defendant the right to a hearing. 438 US at 155–56. If the evidence presented at the hearing supports a finding of intentional or knowing falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth, the false statements must be removed from the affidavit or the omitted truthful information must be added, “and the affidavit must be reexamined to determine whether probable cause exists to issue a warrant.” Carter v. State, 283 Ga. 76, 77 (2008) (punctuation omitted). If the defendant shows the allegation of perjury or reckless disregard by a preponderance of the evidence, “and, with the affidavit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided and the fruits of the search excluded to the same extent as if probable cause was lacking on the face of the affidavit.” Franks, 438 US at 156. (b) Motion to Suppress Hearing By way of important background to this issue, in addition 8 to the February 2020 shooting at Tic Toc that is the subject of the charges against Miller here, there was also evidence presented at the motion to suppress hearing — although not admitted at trial due to the court’s granting of Miller’s motion in limine — of an additional robbery of the same store in June 2019. Specifically, surveillance footage at Tic Toc on June 15, 2019, showed a masked perpetrator arrive at Tic Toc as Birru was attempting to lock the front doors, force Birru into the store at gunpoint, and rob the store before locking Birru in the bathroom. Importantly, the surveillance footage never showed the perpetrator of the June 2019 robbery unmasked or any vehicle that the perpetrator used in connection with the robbery. Prior to trial, Miller filed a Fourth Amended Motion to Suppress arguing that the evidence seized as a result of a number of searches should be suppressed because the warrants that authorized the searches contained numerous false statements. Specifically, Miller took issue with 15 warrant affidavits. 2 At the motion to suppress hearing, which spanned three different days, the State presented testimony from the law enforcement officers who wrote the affidavits or who sought the warrants. The trial court ultimately denied Miller’s Fourth Amended Motion to Suppress. (c) Relevant Search Warrants and Related Affidavits On appeal, Miller takes issue with the same misrepresentations in mostly the same warrant affidavits that he highlighted in his motion to suppress and argues that the misrepresentations in the affidavits were material, intentional, 2 In the motion to suppress, Miller also took issue with a March 2020 geofence warrant issued out of DeKalb County, but because he does not mention this issue on appeal, we will not address it here. 9 and should never have been considered in the trial court’s probable cause analysis. Further, he contends that the trial court improperly used testimony from the motion to suppress hearing to “explain away” the misrepresentations. We will address each warrant affidavit and the allegedly false statements or omissions contained therein in turn, the trial court’s findings as to the statements, and Miller’s arguments on appeal relating to such statements. (i) March 2020 search of Miller’s Sprint cell phone records (ending in -8355) (“Affidavit 1”) In Affidavit 1, Detective J.B. Williams wrote, “Miller was then compared to the robbery that took place on 6/15/2019 from the video that was obtained from that incident. After matching several facial features and body features of Miller, we are certain that he is that male in that robbery as well.” In its order denying the motion to suppress, before the trial court began its analysis of the individual statements within the affidavit, the trial court found: “The defendant has failed to establish that any of the statements in this search warrant affidavit are deliberately false or made in reckless disregard for the truth, as the police had a rational and good faith basis in coming to their presented conclusions.” Returning to the specific statement about the detectives’ identification of Miller, the trial court then credited Detective Williams’s explanation of how the detective arrived at his ultimate conclusion that law enforcement was “certain” that Miller was the perpetrator in the June 2019 footage, as was stated in the search warrant affidavit. Specifically, the court credited the detective’s explanation that he evaluated the perpetrator’s body type, gait of walk, gait of running, and general and specific facial features to arrive at his determination that the perpetrator was Miller. The court also concluded, without further explanation, 10 “any omission of the fact that the perpetrator of the June 15, 2019 armed robbery was wearing a mask, would not be material to the determination of probable cause given the totality of evidence provided to the court for its consideration of the search warrant.” On appeal, Miller argues that law enforcement’s omission of the fact that the perpetrator of the June 2019 Tic Toc armed robbery was wearing a mask is a material omission and that the trial court’s finding to the contrary “defies common sense.” He argues that law enforcement’s statement that they could “certain[ly]” identify Miller as the perpetrator was, at a minimum, stated with a reckless disregard for the truth, and that, despite the detective’s own testimony that the fact that someone is wearing a mask could be important to the determination that someone was identifiable, law enforcement repeatedly misrepresented that they could identify Miller, and the repeated misrepresentations were intentional. In Affidavit 1, Detective Williams also wrote, On the Citgo and Microtel cameras you can see the sedan that the suspects were in. On the Citgo gas station camera, we observed a maroon o[r] red in color Honda or Chevrolet vehicle. At the Citgo gas station, the vehicle is there before the shooting, then leaves and proceeds to park in the Microtel parking lot next to the incident location. In its order denying the motion to suppress, the trial court stated that Detective Williams viewed the footage and concluded that the vehicle was a late model red or burgundy Chevrolet Impala and that Miller could not prove that Detective Williams’s statements were false or made with a reckless disregard for the truth. On appeal, Miller argues that the statement is too definitive in light of the blurry video quality making it impossible 11 to identify “discernable features” in the footage, that law enforcement cannot “draw an inference” that the red sedan that left the Citgo was the same vehicle seen pulling into the Microtel in the grainy footage based only on timestamps, and that “[t]his was a reckless conclusion based on inference.” In Affidavit 1, Detective Williams also explained the anonymous tip that law enforcement received following the news conference with the local news stations: On 3/4/2020 I was notified by Detective Smith that someone called in with a tip about the male suspect that was wearing a camo jacket. The tipster also stated that the vehicle was a Chevrolet Impala not a Honda as the news stated. The tipster advised the male that was in the camo jacket was Ronnie Miller. I did research Miller to learn that he did own a 2017 Chevrolet Impala and obtained his cell phone number from his driver’s license and probation records. In its order denying the motion to suppress, the trial court acknowledged that some of the information about the tip that the detective testified to at the hearing had not been provided to the judge who was reviewing the affidavit and that, given the nature of the anonymous call, the detectives were not in a position to assess the veracity or reliability of the unnamed tipster. But the court explained that the detectives corroborated the tip by comparing the suspect vehicle shown on surveillance footage from near the scene on the night of the murder to Miller’s registered vehicle and determined that the vehicles had the same color, make, and model. The court further explained that law enforcement corroborated the tip by comparing footage from the June 2019 robbery to footage from the February 2020 murder and 12 then to photographs of Miller and determining that the perpetrator was likely the same person, namely Miller. On appeal, Miller argues that law enforcement failed to provide the judge reviewing the affidavit any facts from which the judge could independently determine the reliability of the informant other than the fact that he drove a Chevy Impala and contends that Detective Williams’s statement that he “did research Miller” was insufficient corroboration because law enforcement failed to corroborate any information regarding future activities not easily available to the general public. (ii) March 2020 arrest warrant (“Affidavit 2”) In Affidavit 2, the probable cause section of the affidavit — written by the magistrate judge reviewing the affidavit3 — read, “Police were able to place the accused at the location of the shooting based on his cell phone records obtained by search warrants.” In its order denying the motion to suppress, the trial court agreed with the detectives that the use of the phrase “at the location of” was not a false statement or made with reckless disregard for the truth and was “of little importance to the ultimate finding by the judge” and that “[m]inor factual inaccuracies, which are only peripherally relevant to the showing, will not void the warrant where their presence in the affidavit is not such as to reflect on the credibility of the affiant.” On appeal, Miller argues that the language used in Affidavit 2 of records placing him “at the location of the shooting” was a misrepresentation, as evidenced by law enforcement’s changing of the language in affidavits filed later to state in more general 3 At the motion to suppress hearing, Detective Williams explained that, for this affidavit, the detective orally testified to the contents of this affidavit to the magistrate judge who then wrote the “Probable Cause” section of this affidavit before signing it along with the detective. 13 language only that the records placed his cell phone “in the same sector” or “in the area” of Tic Toc but that, by the time law enforcement began using the new language in affidavits, law enforcement already had seized evidence to be used against Miller. In Affidavit 2, the probable cause section of the affidavit included a statement, similar to one from Affidavit 1, about the identifiability of Miller’s face in surveillance footage. But unlike in Affidavit 1, where Detective Williams stated that he was specifically comparing surveillance footage from the February 2020 murder at Tic Toc to the June 2019 robbery of Tic Toc, the statement written in Affidavit 2 by the magistrate judge in the probable cause section read, “The video from the second armed robbery captures [Miller’s] face, by which he can be identified.” In the trial court’s order discussing the alleged falsities in Affidavit 2, the trial court again explained that law enforcement analyzed the gait, body type, and facial features of the perpetrator of the June 2019 Tic Toc armed robbery and compared those to photographs of Miller to determine that they were the same person. The court, again, stated, “[A]ny omission of the fact that the perpetrator of the June 15, 2019 armed robbery was wearing a mask, would not be material to the determination of probable cause given the totality of evidence provided to the court for its consideration of the search warrant.” On appeal, Miller argues that law enforcement was misrepresenting that it could identify Miller’s face in the footage of the June 2019 Tic Toc armed robbery without also informing the magistrate judge reviewing the affidavit that the perpetrator of that robbery was actually wearing a mask and hoodie. And finally, in Affidavit 2, the probable cause section of the affidavit read, “Surveillance video obtained in connection to a 14 second armed robbery shows the same car captured in the surveillance video obtained from this crime investigation.” In its order, the trial court credited Detective Williams’s testimony that he was intending to refer to the January 2020 Rockdale County Exxon armed robbery that showed Miller exit his 2017 burgundy Chevy Impala approximately 30 minutes prior to that Rockdale armed robbery taking place. On appeal, Miller argues that the trial court “went beyond the warrant” by finding that law enforcement was intending to refer to the Rockdale robbery when it included this false statement in this affidavit. Miller contends that the statement is material because it would cause the judge reviewing the affidavit to incorrectly assume that Miller’s car, and therefore Miller, had been involved in another armed robbery at the same location just months prior to the February 2020 shooting. At the end of its discussion of Affidavit 2, the trial court found: “The defendant has failed to establish that any of the statements in this search warrant affidavit are deliberately false or made in reckless disregard for the truth, as the police had a rational and good faith basis in coming to their presented conclusions.” (iii) March 2020 search of residence (“Affidavit 3”) In Affidavit 3, Detective B.P. Kershaw stated, “Miller’s cell phone recorders (sic) (obtained by search warrants) placed him at the scene during the incident.” In its order, the trial court credited the testimony of Detectives Williams and K.E. McQuilkin — neither of whom wrote Affidavit 3 — who testified that the cell phone data showed that the phone was “active in the known location,” and was “in the sector of the location during the relevant time period.” Further, the court found that Detective Williams’s — again, not the affiant — use of the word “scene” 15 instead of “location” or “area” was not a false statement or made with reckless disregard for the truth and was “of little importance to the ultimate finding by the judge,” as it also found for Affidavit 2. On appeal, Miller argues that the trial court erred by failing to find that stating that the data placing Miller “at the scene” was a misrepresentation because the detective testified that he could not say the cell phone data placed Miller at the scene but, rather, he could only state that Miller was in the scene’s cell phone tower sector. He argues that this misrepresentation was material because any judge reviewing the affidavit would find probable cause based on Miller being at the location but that, without this “gross misrepresentation,” there was no remaining probable cause in this affidavit. In Affidavit 3, Detective Kershaw also stated, “The video collected from the 6/16/19 incident captured one of the suspect’s face which matches the likeness of Ronnie Miller.” In its order denying the motion to suppress, the trial court again credited Detective Williams’s testimony that he analyzed the gait, body type, and facial features of the perpetrator of the June 2019 Tic Toc armed robbery and of the February 2020 Tic Toc shooting and compared those to photographs of Miller to determine that they were the same person. The trial court again included the statement that any omission of the fact that the perpetrator was wearing a mask would not be material. On appeal, Miller makes the same arguments about this statement that he did about the similar one in Affidavit 1 which also claimed to identify him by the face and omitted the fact that the perpetrator was wearing a mask. In Affidavit 3, Detective Kershaw also stated, “The same suspect vehicle can be seen parking approximately 1/10 of a mile near a Citgo at 2900 Evans Mill Road just prior to the 6/1[5]/19 16 incident and can be seen driving through the parking lot just prior to the 2/19/20 incident.” In its order, the trial court acknowledged that the State conceded at the motion to suppress hearing that this was a false statement because, although the car was seen in footage of the Citgo parking lot just prior to the February 2020 shooting, the car was not seen on any footage in connection with the June 2019 robbery. The trial court, nevertheless, found that Miller failed to show “that the inclusion of this false statement was deliberate or done with a reckless disregard for the truth” because Detective Kershaw testified that, following conversations with other detectives, he misunderstood when the car had been seen at the Citgo. On appeal, Miller makes the same arguments about this statement that he did about the similar one in the probable cause section of Affidavit 2, contending that the admitted misrepresentation was material and meets the burden to have the court reconsider probable cause without the misrepresentation. Also in Affidavit 3, Detective Kershaw wrote, “We received an anonymous tip after airing the information on the news identifying one of the suspects as Ronnie Juval Miller.” The trial court explained that, by obtaining Miller’s cell phone records, the judge reviewing the affidavit was provided with sufficient corroborating information to establish the reliability of the informant’s information. On appeal, Miller makes the same argument about this statement as he does the statement about the anonymous tip in Affidavit 1. After the trial court analyzed the alleged misstatements in Affidavit 3, the trial court found: “The defendant has failed to establish that any of the statements in this search warrant affidavit are deliberately false or made in reckless disregard for the truth, as the police had a rational and good faith basis in 17 coming to their presented conclusions.” (iv) March 2020 search of Chevy Impala (“Affidavit 4”), March 2020 search of clothing at the DeKalb County jail (“Affidavit 5”), April 2020 search of black Samsung (SM-A505U) (“Affidavit 6”), & April 2020 search of chrome Samsung (SM- G920T) (“Affidavit 7”) In Affidavits 4-7, Detective Williams included the same statement from Affidavit 1 stating that detectives were “certain” that Miller was the male involved in the June 2019 Tic Toc armed robbery. In its order denying the motion to suppress, the trial court repeated its explanation of this statement from its analysis of Affidavit 1, including the crediting of Detective Williams’s testimony and the finding that any omission of the fact that the perpetrator was wearing a mask would not be material. On appeal, Miller makes the same arguments about this statement in these affidavits that he did about it for Affidavit 1. Also in Affidavits 4-7, Detective Williams included the same statement about being able to see the red Honda or Chevrolet present at the Citgo prior to the shooting, then leaving, then parking in the Microtel parking lot next to Tic Toc. In its order denying the motion, the trial court repeated its explanation of this statement from its analysis of Affidavit 1 that many law enforcement personnel viewed the footage and concluded that the vehicle was a late model red or burgundy Chevrolet Impala and that Miller was unable to prove these statements were false. On appeal, Miller makes the same arguments about this statement that he did about it for Affidavit 1. And in Affidavits 4-7, Detective Williams presented the same statement about the anonymous tip to the magistrate judges as he did in Affidavit 1. In its order denying the motion, the trial court explained that the magistrate judges reviewing the 18 affidavits had sufficient corroborating information to establish the reliability of the unknown informant because law enforcement obtained or presented information regarding the defendant’s cell phone records, the defendant’s alleged involvement in a prior robbery at the incident location, and the discovery of the clothing used in the January 2020 Rockdale County Exxon armed robbery and in the February 2020 DeKalb Tic Toc shooting. On appeal, Miller makes the same argument about this statement as he does the statement about the anonymous tip in Affidavit 1. After the trial court analyzed the alleged misstatements in Affidavits 4-7, the trial court found for each affidavit: “The defendant has failed to establish that any of the statements in this search warrant affidavit are deliberately false or made in reckless disregard for the truth, as the police had a rational and good faith basis in coming to their presented conclusions.” (v) April 2020 search of Sprint cell phone records (ending in -8355) (“Affidavit 8”) & July 2020 search of T-Mobile cell phone records (ending in -9710) (“Affidavit 9”) In Affidavits 8 and 9, Investigator S.M. Bailey wrote, “Police were able to place [Miller] at the location of the shooting based on his cell phone records.” The trial court explained that Investigator Bailey testified that his basis of knowledge that cell phone records placed Miller “at the location” was that he reviewed Detective McQuilkin’s analysis of Miller’s call detail records before he included that statement in the affidavit. The trial court found that Bailey’s statement was not false or made with reckless disregard for the truth because using the language “at the location” versus “in the area of” was “of little importance,” as it did for the same statement in the probable cause section of Affidavit 2. On appeal, Miller takes issue with the use of the 19 language “at the location” as he did for the same language in Affidavit 2 and for the “at the scene” language in Affidavit 4. Investigator Bailey also wrote in Affidavits 8 and 9, “Surveillance video obtained in connection to a second, unrelated armed robbery at the same location on 6/15/19 shows the same car captured in the surveillance video obtained from this crime investigation.” In its order, the trial court acknowledged that the State conceded at the motion to suppress hearing that this was a false statement. But the trial court then found there was no evidence that Investigator Bailey deliberately included the statement knowing that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth. The court, nonetheless, found that this statement should be stricken from the affidavit and the remaining portions examined for probable cause and then found that there was sufficient probable cause remaining in the affidavit without the statement. In Affidavits 8 and 9, in the sentence immediately following the statement referencing the second robbery occurring at the same location on 6/15/19, Investigator Bailey wrote the same statement that was included in the probable cause section of Affidavit 2: “The video from the second armed robbery captures [Miller’s] face, by which he can be identified.” The trial court credited Investigator Bailey’s testimony that law enforcement analyzed the gait, body type, and facial features of the perpetrator of the June 2019 Tic Toc armed robbery and of the February 2020 Tic Toc shooting and compared those to photographs of Miller to determine that they were the same person, and the court, again, included the statement that any omission of the fact that the perpetrator was wearing a mask would not be material. On appeal, Miller makes the same arguments relating to these findings as he did to those regarding Affidavit 2. 20  Also in Affidavits 8 and 9, Investigator Bailey stated that “[p]olice received an anonymous tip after airing information on the news identifying Ronnie Miller as a participant in the shooting of the decedent.” In the order, the trial court found that Miller failed to show that this was a false statement following Investigator Bailey’s testimony that he included that statement after reviewing case notes of other detectives. Further, the trial court found that Miller’s cell phone records and law enforcement’s information about Miller’s involvement in a prior robbery at the incident location comprised sufficient corroborating information to establish the reliability of the informant. On appeal, Miller makes the same arguments about the lack of cor