Category Archives: F.R.Crim.P. 41

M.D.Ala.: No 4A right via Rule 41 to have copy of SW at scene; no exclusion for failure to timely leave it

Rule 41 requires that a copy of the search warrant be left at the premises, but it grants no constitutional right to the target of the search to supervise the search. Moreover, failure to leave a copy of the warrant … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Warrant execution | Comments Off on M.D.Ala.: No 4A right via Rule 41 to have copy of SW at scene; no exclusion for failure to timely leave it

W.D.Tenn.: Affidavit for SW doesn’t need to support drug dog’s training, too

The affidavit for a search warrant based in part on a dog sniff doesn’t have to also justify the dog’s training to show probable cause. Failure to provide it isn’t a Franks violation. United States v. Tullous, 2019 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, F.R.Crim.P. 41 | Comments Off on W.D.Tenn.: Affidavit for SW doesn’t need to support drug dog’s training, too

W.D.Pa.: Retaining new counsel and attempting to reopen suppression hearing under guise of IAC claim rejected

Defendant retained new counsel and moved to reopen his suppression hearing alleging former counsel was ineffective for not raising a better argument. The motion is denied because this claim doesn’t satisfy the standard for reopening. The issue was available and … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Good faith exception, GPS / Tracking Data, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on W.D.Pa.: Retaining new counsel and attempting to reopen suppression hearing under guise of IAC claim rejected

S.D.Ohio: A federal-state joint task force isn’t required to use a Rule 41 search warrant

A federal-state joint task force isn’t required to use a Rule 41 search warrant. United States v. Williams, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89133 (S.D. Ohio May 29, 2019). “Defendant bears the burden of showing beyond mere speculation that the disclosure … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on S.D.Ohio: A federal-state joint task force isn’t required to use a Rule 41 search warrant

D.Mass.: Failure to leave a full copy of the SW at scene does not require suppression

“Jones alleges that he entered a guilty plea unknowingly because [defense counsel] Cloherty incorrectly informed him that, after testifying at the suppression hearing that he lived part-time at the apartment where the officers executed the search, he could not testify … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Warrant execution | Comments Off on D.Mass.: Failure to leave a full copy of the SW at scene does not require suppression

CA9: Playpen warrant violated Rule 41(b)(1), but GFE still saved it

A Network Investigative Technique (NIT) warrant (“Playpen” warrant) issued by a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Virginia exceeded the general territorial scope identified in Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(b)(1) and was thus void ab initio because it authorized … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA9: Playpen warrant violated Rule 41(b)(1), but GFE still saved it

N.D.Tex.: Neither 4A or Rule 41 requires SW be served on def before its execution

“Neither the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 requires the executing officer to serve a search warrant on the owner before beginning the search. United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 98-99 (2006). Counsel was not ineffective for failing to file … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Tex.: Neither 4A or Rule 41 requires SW be served on def before its execution

D.R.I.: Delay in getting cell phone SW as attributed to parties’ settlement discussions

The delay in getting a search warrant for defendant’s cell phones was caused in part by the parties’ negotiations over pre-indictment resolution, and it was reasonable. United States v. Boudreau, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48686 (D. R.I. Mar. 24, 2018).* … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, F.R.Crim.P. 41 | Comments Off on D.R.I.: Delay in getting cell phone SW as attributed to parties’ settlement discussions

S.D.Ala.: AL state requirement of recording SW application doesn’t apply to SW used in federal court

The Alabama state requirement that an application for a search warrant be recorded doesn’t apply to using the product of the search in federal court. United States v. Tensley, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29979 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 26, 2018). Defendant’s … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Franks doctrine | Comments Off on S.D.Ala.: AL state requirement of recording SW application doesn’t apply to SW used in federal court

SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: Justices divided over disclosure of overseas emails

SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: Justices divided over disclosure of overseas emails by Amy Howe:

Posted in E-mail, F.R.Crim.P. 41 | Comments Off on SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: Justices divided over disclosure of overseas emails

WaPo: Supreme Court to hear Microsoft case: A question of law and borders

WaPo: Supreme Court to hear Microsoft case: A question of law and borders by Ellen Nakashima:

Posted in E-mail, F.R.Crim.P. 41, SCOTUS | Comments Off on WaPo: Supreme Court to hear Microsoft case: A question of law and borders

CA3: Playpen SW violated Rule 41 and 4A, but GFE saves the search

Playpen search warrant violated Fourth Amendment, but the good faith exception saves it. “For the reasons discussed below, we hold that the NIT warrant violated Rule 41(b). As a result, the magistrate judge not only exceeded her authority under the … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Good faith exception | Comments Off on CA3: Playpen SW violated Rule 41 and 4A, but GFE saves the search