ssues there tendered, it fails to meet the legal requirements for suppression. Stripped of its conclusory assertions, the I. "See United Stings v. Schtfenl, 2 Cir., 265 F.2d 408, which exPreally diup- proves ►latter of Bodkin, D.C.E.D.N.Y. TED STATES 173 .24 tea ONO) taxpayer alleges that some time