Does a violation of state law preclude the need for a Franks hearing?

5 The district court held that a violation of state law did not bear upon an analysis of whether a Franks hearing was necessary. The district court noted that so long as the obtaining of the warrant complied with federal law, the evidence would be admissible in a federal trial. See United States v. Chavez-Vernaza, 844 F.2d 1368, 1374 (9th Cir.1987) (evidence seized by state officials without federal involvement in alleged violation of state law was admissible in federal court, where it was seized in compliance with federal law). Stirn has not pursued this argument on appeal.

6 Except for failure to file a timely notice of appeal.