Defendant’s Franks challenge to the search warrant wasn’t specific and was actually a mere “complain[t]” without an offer of proof, and that’s just not enough. United States v. Yackel, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12819 (D. Minn. Jan. 28, 2019)*:
Yackel argues that a Franks hearing is necessary to produce evidence that the controlled buy actually occurred, a fact which Yackel denies, and to demonstrate that Yackel has not faced charges related to any firearm recovered during a prior search. But Yackel offers no evidence and advances no argument that undermines the R&R’s conclusion that Yackel failed to make the requisite “substantial showing” that would entitle him to a Franks hearing. Instead, Yackel merely “complains” in his objection to the R&R “that the standard the Court applies to the threshold Franks question is impossible to meet.”
A bare allegation, without an offer of proof, fails to meet the requisite preliminary showing for a Franks hearing. United States v. El-Alamin, 574 F.3d 915, 925 (8th Cir. 2009). Yackel’s unsupported assertion that the controlled buy did not occur does not entitle him to a Franks hearing. As the R&R observes, the detailed search warrant affidavit contradicts Yackel’s allegation. The affidavit specified Yackel’s address, which was corroborated by Officer Peterson, and describes how the controlled buy was arranged and surveilled by law enforcement.