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

D.N.H.: Federal case can rely on state SW

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not challenging the search warrant in his federal case that was issued by a state court judge because it wouldn’t win. Lessard v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180669 (D.N.H. Oct. 3, 2024).* … Continue reading

Posted in Due process, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Informant hearsay, Plain view, feel, smell, Reasonableness | Comments Off on D.N.H.: Federal case can rely on state SW

N.D.Tex.: Suppression in forfeiture is Supp.Rule G(8)(a) not Rule 41

The government sought forfeiture of the owner’s cash after it was seized at DFW after a dog sniff on his bag. The owner responded with a motion to suppress under Rule 41, but that doesn’t apply in forfeiture cases. Supplemental … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Plain view, feel, smell, Waiver | Comments Off on N.D.Tex.: Suppression in forfeiture is Supp.Rule G(8)(a) not Rule 41

N.D.Ala.: Whether DTF officer could make speeding stops was a reasonable mistake of law under Heien

The task force officer involved allegedly wasn’t authorized to make speeding traffic stops, but this was a reasonable mistake of law under Heien. United States v. Shepherd, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181976 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 10, 2023). The bulge in … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Reasonable suspicion, Reasonableness, Tracking warrant | Comments Off on N.D.Ala.: Whether DTF officer could make speeding stops was a reasonable mistake of law under Heien

CA11: Without a factual dispute, there’s no requirement of a suppression hearing

The suppression “hearing” was a five-minute discussion of the law, and there were no factual disputes presented. Therefore, “defendant need not be present for any ‘conference or hearing on a question of law.’ Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(3).” United States … Continue reading

Posted in Consent, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Suppression hearings | Comments Off on CA11: Without a factual dispute, there’s no requirement of a suppression hearing

E.D.Tenn.: Mislabeling SW attachments not worthy of exclusion

Accidental reverse numbering of Attachments A and B didn’t make the search warrant void. United States v. Deakins, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60866 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 6, 2023).* Plaintiff’s claim that the Director of National Intelligence violates the Fourth Amendment … Continue reading

Posted in Exclusionary rule, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Particularity, Qualified immunity | Comments Off on E.D.Tenn.: Mislabeling SW attachments not worthy of exclusion

CA10 explains nondomestic FISA surveillance in easy detail

For a detailed explanation of nondomestic FISA activities and phone call surveillance, see United States v. Muhtorov, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36170 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) (No warrant or court order is required to surveil foreign persons’ conversations outside … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, FISA, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CA10 explains nondomestic FISA surveillance in easy detail

CA6: DEA can get state SWs and assist in state investigations, then go federal

DEA officers can get search warrants in federal investigations from state judges for state law violations aiding state officers. That doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment or Rule 41. And, there is also the good faith exception. United States v. Williams, … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Franks doctrine, Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off on CA6: DEA can get state SWs and assist in state investigations, then go federal

N.D.Ga.: Two year delay in searching seized cell phone not unreasonable

Defendant’s cell phone was seized in April 2017 but not finally searched until April 2019. This was still reasonable under Rule 41. United States v. Dixon, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95041 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 15, 2021):

Posted in Cell phones, F.R.Crim.P. 41, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Ga.: Two year delay in searching seized cell phone not unreasonable

D.D.C.: Failure to timely make return of papers under Rule 41 not a 4A violation

Failure to make the return of the warrant to the clerk along with the inventory in violation of Rule 41 requires more than just negligence in failing to do it on time. Where’s the prejudice? The court will not speculate … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Good faith exception, Issue preclusion | Comments Off on D.D.C.: Failure to timely make return of papers under Rule 41 not a 4A violation

N.D.Cal.: Failure to produce SW at scene of search doesn’t violate Rule 41 or 4A

Failure to produce a search warrant at the time of the search doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment or Rule 41. Also, the search was particular. “In our case, a San Francisco Superior Court issued the search warrant, which federal ATF … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Warrant execution | Comments Off on N.D.Cal.: Failure to produce SW at scene of search doesn’t violate Rule 41 or 4A

D.Md.: Local officer assigned to federal task force is a “federal law enforcement officer” for Rule 41

A local officer assigned to an IRS task force is a “federal law enforcement officer” for Rule 41 to seek warrants. Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not making an unmeritorious argument. United States v. Jackson, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223799 … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Informant hearsay | Comments Off on D.Md.: Local officer assigned to federal task force is a “federal law enforcement officer” for Rule 41

CA4: Even if Rule 41 was violated by not leaving application for SW at scene it wasn’t prejudicial or intentional

“Here, the district court credited Agent Hayes’ testimony that he left a copy of the face of the warrant and an inventory of the items seized in the search, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(f)(1)(C), but that he did not … Continue reading

Posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Probable cause, Warrant execution | Comments Off on CA4: Even if Rule 41 was violated by not leaving application for SW at scene it wasn’t prejudicial or intentional

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