What makes a good Franks motion? To find out, check out Judge Dillon's order granting a hearing in United States v. Anderson, No. 7:19-cr-00027, 2019 WL 3307841 (W.D. Va. July 23, 2019).
In Anderson, the search warrant affidavit at issue (1) failed to clarify that the affiant was relying on controlled buys conducted by two (not just one) confidential informants (and not conducted by the affiant himself); (2) made no statements concerning either confidential informant's credibility; and (3) omitted information that the first confidential informant had been caught with a narcotic during a previous controlled buy and had been terminated from the investigation.
This detailed offer of proof was sufficient to warrant a Franks hearing:
magistrate did not know, and could not have gleaned from the totality of the
affidavit, is that there were two different confidential informants, that no
information about reliability or trustworthiness had been provided for either
of them, and that the first confidential informant was in possession of narcotics
during one of the earlier controlled buys from Anderson. Therefore, looking to
the omissions and the affidavit as a whole, the court finds that Anderson has
also made a substantial preliminary showing under the materiality prong that
the omitted information was material and necessary to the finding of probable