Opinion ID: 2977964
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Material Omission

Text: Defendant alleges that law enforcement agents failed to advise the court that the shipments from Wells were to Defendant’s post office box and not his place of residence. Defendant alleges the omission shows either an intent to mislead or a reckless disregard for the truth because the location to be searched is the principal inquiry in any probable cause determination. We conclude that the district court properly denied the motion for a Franks hearing. As the district court observed, although Defendant showed that an omission occurred, he made no showing that the affiant intended to mislead the judge by that omission. “[E]xcept in the very rare cares where the defendant makes a strong preliminary showing that the affiant with an intention to mislead excluded critical information from the affidavit, and the omission is critical to the finding of -8- probable cause, Franks is inapplicable to the omission of disputed facts.” Mays v. City of Dayton, 134 F.3d 809, 816 (6th Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original); Hale v. Kart, 396 F.3d 721, 727 (6th Cir. 2005) (same; citing Mays).