In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress seizure of firearm from defendant’s rental car, even though defendant argued that Franks hearing was required to determine search’s validity in light of fact that officer seeking search warrant misrepresented and omitted certain facts. Instant affidavit listed several facts that connected defendant to series of bank robberies, including: (1) presence of Cardinal baseball cap and grey basketball shoes in defendant’s car that resembled items worn by perpetrator(s) in bank robberies; (2) existence of several contacts that defendant made with another suspect in said robberies; and (3) existence of incriminating phone call that defendant made to girlfriend to clean out his car. Fact that officer told judge that cap was worn during one robbery, that basketball shoes were “Jordans” as opposed to “LeBrons” (which were in defendant’s car), or that defendant’s car resembled car observed at two robberies either were not misstatements or were immaterial misstatements so as to not require Franks hearing. Moreover, remaining facts in affidavit were sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that defendant’s car contained evidence of instant bank robberies.