In what circumstances will a defendant who challenges a search warrant based on an affidavit containing omissions from an interview with Seihoon have to prove that they omitted something from the affidavit?

The trial court's ruling was correct in the context of defendant's Franks motion. Other than speculating Seihoon may have said something to the police that they omitted from the affidavit, defendant failed to establish the relevance of the content of Seihoon's interview vis--vis his Franks claim. (People v. Bradford, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 1297, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259 ["A defendant who challenges a search warrant based upon an affidavit containing omissions bears the burden of showing that the omissions were material to the determination of probable cause"].) It was therefore properly excluded.