Opinion ID: 788340
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The district court's failure to conduct a Franks hearing

Text: 118 Appellants argue that the district court erred in failing to conduct a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). We review the district court's denial of a Franks hearing de novo, but review the underlying factual findings of the district court regarding materiality under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Bennett, 219 F.3d 1117, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000). 119 A defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing where he or she makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was (1) deliberately or recklessly included in an affidavit submitted in support of a wiretap, and (2) material to the district court's finding of necessity. Shryock, 342 F.3d at 977 (citation omitted). As we have explained in the preceding sections, the district court properly rejected Appellants' arguments that the Olsen affidavits contained material misstatements or omissions. The district court therefore did not err in denying Appellants' request for a Franks hearing.