A Franks challenge that is nothing more than an argument about inferences doesn’t plead enough to get a hearing. United States v. Defilippo, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22784 (S.D. N.Y. Jan. 31, 2018):
Here, it is not certain that the omissions give rise to “serious doubts” or “obvious reasons to doubt” the veracity of the supporting affidavit. See Rajaratnam, 719 F.3d at 154 (citing United States v. Whitley, 249 F.3d 614, 621 (7th Cir. 2001)). DeFilippo asserts that the omitted information establishes that Amtrak was aware of the exact nature of his prior service with the Suffolk County Police Department and that it considered his service to be prior police work. (See Memo. at 13-15; Reply in Further Support of Defendant’s Pretrial Motions, ECF No. 24, at 5-7.)
But these assertions are merely argumentative inferences that DeFilippo draws to support his contention that the materiality element of wire fraud is lacking. ….