Defendant fails in his Franks argument for a failure of an offer of proof. Merely conclusorily stating the issue isn’t enough. There has to be context and how it was knowingly false. United States v. Martin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213190 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 15, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212967 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 29, 2017).
Omission of alleged exculpatory information (not seeing stuff during a plain view) from the affidavit wasn’t exactly exculpatory for Franks purposes, and it didn’t undermine the probable cause. The affidavit for search warrant was about ongoing criminal activity, and the showing of probable cause was neither stale nor bare bones. United States v. Parker, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212629 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2017),* adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212319 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2017).*
“At bottom, the Court is left with the impression that Agent McCormick was not a master of detail, that he was inattentive, and that he was a poor writer. But the Court is not impressed with Anderson’s showing that McCormick either set out to deceive, or entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his allegations, when he drafted his affidavit.” “Beyond any doubt the cumulative weight of this unchallenged material was sufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant for Anderson’s business/residence, as well as seizure warrants for his brokerage accounts. Because neither the elimination of the alleged falsehoods, nor the inclusion of the information that Anderson contends was deliberately or recklessly omitted, would defeat probable cause, the Court can say with confidence that Anderson’s veracity challenge is insufficient on its face, without any need for holding an evidentiary hearing.” United States v. Anderson, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212765 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 30, 2017), adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212734 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 28, 2017).*
No Franks hearing is justified because the mistakes and omissions aren’t material. Removed from the affidavit, the remainder still shows probable cause. United States v. McQuiston, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212443 (D. Kan. Dec. 28, 2017).*