Defendant got a suppression hearing to put on proof of a Franks violation, and he fails to show with any proof that the statements were reckless or material. Perhaps the court should have never ordered a hearing for a lack of an offer of proof. United States v. Pruitt, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165111 (D. Nev. Sept. 25, 2017):
Defendant has alleged specifically which portions of the affidavit he submits contain either omissions or misstatements, which satisfies the first requirement. The Court finds, however, that Defendant fails to make a substantial preliminary showing that the omissions and/or misstatements were deliberately or recklessly made, as per the second requirement. Further, Defendant has not met the third requirement, as he fails to make a detailed offer of proof to accompany his allegations. Additionally, Defendant has not met the fourth requirement regarding Q’s statement denying that he lived at the apartment, as he challenges Q’s veracity and not that of the affiant. Finally, Defendant has failed to meet the fifth requirement, as he has failed to show that the challenged statements/omissions are necessary to probable cause.