the motion was made primarily to withhold evidence from the anticipated grand jury hearings and, therefore, not made ‘solely for the return of property.’ ” Uresti, 724 F.2d at 1159. The trial court found and we agree that Appellants’ motion is primarily intended to withhold evidence from the Oklahoma grand jury. Not only did Appellants indicate to the trial court that they were seeking suppression, but also they failed to demonstrate a business need for return of the property as Appellees provided Appellants with copies of all of the seized items. Finally, the fact that Appellants are simultaneously seeking a suppression remedy under Franks strongly suggests that this motion is not intended solely or primarily for the mere return of property. See Franks, 438 U.S. at 156, 98 S.Ct. 2674 (<HOLDING>). This is a suppression case. We agree with the
holding that the fourth amendment remedy sought is suppression holding that the appropriate remedy for a public trial violation was a new suppression hearing not a new trial because the remedy should be appropriate to the violation holding suppression is not a remedy for violation of vienna convention under federal law holding that suppression is not an appropriate remedy for officers failure to serve a warrant to the defendant before during or immediately after the search holding that because suppression of illegally obtained evidence is a form of injunctive relief suppression of defendants bank records obtained in violation of rsa chapter 359c is an appropriate remedy