Computer searches should occur away from the target’s premises. Sometimes they take a long time, and it is infeasible to do them at the scene of the search when it can take days. The comment to the Rule supports this. Thus, the officers did not violate Rule 41(e)(2)(B), so there is nothing to suppress. United States v. Loera, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52111 (D.N.M. April 19, 2016).
A state officer violated the immigration law in arresting the defendant for being somebody already deported. “Thus, based on the Court’s factual findings regarding the sequence of events, Officer Tritschler’s arrest of the Defendant was not justified under [8 U.S.C.] § 1357(g)(10). As this is the only justification cited by the Government for the lawfulness of the arrest, the Court finds that the Government has not met its burden of establishing the lawfulness of this warrantless arrest. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Officer Tritschler violated the Defendant’s right to be free from unlawful seizure.” His fingerprints are thus the fruit of the poisonous tree and had to be suppressed. United States v. Argueta-Mejia, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185444 (D.Colo. May 27, 2014), aff’d 615 Fed. Appx. 485 (10th Cir. 2015).*