E.D.Va.: Another NIT Playpen case before same judge; suppression not a proper remedy

“The exact issues raised by the instant motions to suppress were also raised by the defendant in United States v. Gerald Andrew Darby, 2:16cr36. another case pending before the undersigned. The Court denied both Motions to Suppress in Darby and issued a written opinion justifying its denial. United States v. Darby, No. 2:16cr36, 2016 WL 3189703 (E.D. Va. June 3, 2016). The Court explained why the issuance of the NIT warrant did not violate either the Fourth Amendment or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 41(b). Although the factual record in the instant case has been supplemented by Defendant, the reasons the Court gave in Darby for denying the Motions to Suppress apply with equal force here. Accordingly, the Court hereby incorporates its opinion in Darby. The undersigned writes further to emphasize that suppression is an extraordinary remedy and would not be appropriate in the instant case even if, as Defendant maintains, there were a violation of the Fourth Amendment or of Rule 41(b).” United States v. Eure, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99168 (E.D.Va. July 28, 2016).*