The government got consent to search a package for drugs. That consent did not include cutting a candle in half to find the drugs. Consent to search doesn’t include destruction of property. United States v. Swenton, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75131 (D. Alas. May 3, 2018).
The possibility of an alleged Franks violation making its way to the grand jury testimony for the indictment isn’t enough to dismiss the indictment. “The Supreme Court has long held that ‘an indictment valid on its face’ is not subject to a challenge based on ‘the reliability or competence of the evidence presented to the grand jury.’ Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254 (1988) (citing Calandra, 414 U.S. at 344-45); …” Moreover, the motion doesn’t allege that the prosecutors had any knowledge of that. United States v. James, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76560 (D. Nev. May 7, 2018).