I have an unusual situation. Def. held a professional license and is alleged to have committed a felony under the auspices of that license. We ran a search warrant. Since the warrant was run, regulatory agency engaged in full administrative hearing against defendant (Def. was pro se) and SOAH judge found his license should be revoked for the same conduct that constituted the basis of PC and breadth for our warrant. SOAH Judge's findings were adopted.

Def. now wants a Franks hearing saying the allegations that form PC are false. He already put forth his assertions at SOAH and called witnesses to establish his position. (Exact same issue; same defendant (but State entity is different))
1. Is there any case that requires the defendant to have some basis for his allegations in order to get a Franks hearing?
2. Is there any way I can assert collateral estoppel or is that a right granted only to "persons" (individuals) under the Constitution.
3. Is Brady implicated if I assert collateral Estoppel and the judge finds in my favor on the issue?
Please give me your best guess.

On what is needed to get a Franks hearing see 40 TEX. PRAC � 6.42; Cates v. State, 120 S.W.3d 352, 356 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).

Under Brady and the Professional Rules you must reveal information. Your motion does that. It has absolutly nothing to do with admitting the information. Different issue entirely. The ethical thing to do is reveal, then fight like heck to exclude.