is sought, see 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(b)(i), and the wiretap must not be a “subterfuge search,” actually directed at crimes other than those specified in the application, United States v. Marion, 535 F.2d 697, 700 (2d Cir.1976) (internal quotation marks omitted). Garrison argues that the wiretaps targeting him were not intended to develop evidence of drug crimes, as claimed, but actually a subterfuge for investigating the murder of “an Aurora confidential informant.” (ECF No. 611 at 2, 4, 35-38.) ’ | If true, this would be a material omission, supporting a Franks challenge. Thus, if Garrison wishes to attack the wiretap applications with' evidence outside of what the issuing judge considered, he must show he is entitled to a Franks hearing. See Oregon-Cortez, 244 F.Supp.2d at 1170-72 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. McDowell, 520
holding that art i  2 of the constitution requires that as nearly as is practicable one mans vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as anothers holding that so much of the foreign judgment as attempts to affect the title to north carolina property  is a nullity holding as much holding that the law in effect at the time a contract is made is as much a part of the contract as if incorporated therein recognizing that a stay is as much a refusal to exercise federal jurisdiction as a dismissal