rests”) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The complaint refers to “a flawed affidavit” (Compl. ¶ 18), “a deficient affidavit” (id. ¶¶86, 91), and “an affidavit ... deficient and lacking in facts” (id. ¶ 80), but it fails to allege that the affidavit contained material information that was false. The complaint alleges that “Officer Linville negligently requested a warrant based on unreliable information and factual inconsistencies.” (Id. ¶ 102.) However, “[ajllegations of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient” to satisfy the Franks test which requires intentional or reckless disregard for the truth. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978); see also United States v. Dale, 991 F.2d 819 (D.C.Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Although the complaint alleges that “Ms.
holding that the district court erred by not permitting defense counsel to argue to the jury that the governments case was weakened by a lack of evidence allegedly caused by its failure to investigate holding failure to investigate before publishing is not sufficient to prove actual malice holding that defendant made preliminary showing where the proffered evidence the investigation report contradicted the affiants statements holding that the eeoc has authority to investigate a broader picture of discrimination that appears during the investigation of an individual charge holding that failure to investigate fully is not evidence of affiants reckless disregard for the truth because questioning of others might have caused a leak in the drug investigation