E.D.Pa.: Just because defense counsel finds an omitted fact interesting doesn’t make it “material”; not all facts need be included

The 121 page affidavit for search warrant for evidence of drug trafficking was neither stale nor lacked nexus. Defendant’s Franks challenge also fails for lack of a substantial preliminary showing. United States v. Briggs, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44653 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 2021):

The Franks standard does not require affiants to recite the entire history of events, convey every possible detail, or entertain every conceivable alternative explanation before applying for a search warrant. See Russo, 212 F.3d at 787 (“Merely because a fact would be of interest to a defense lawyer at trial does not render its omission subject to Franks.”). The reality is that “in many cases…it is desirable for officers to provide the magistrate with a distilled version of the circumstances giving rise to probable cause.” Dempsey v. Bucknell University, 834 F.3d 457, 471 n.10 (3d Cir. 2016). Even if investigators had submitted the common-area security video along with the affidavit, it would have only further corroborated their account.