Officers used a state judge’s tracking warrant on defendant in technical violation of state law. It was not an isolated case. Nonetheless, defendant doesn’t show that he was prejudiced by this failure sufficient to justify applying the exclusionary rule. United States v. Stetkiw, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16605 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2019):
Because Stetkiw fails to show the violation of Rule 41 prejudiced him or that the violation was intentional and deliberate, suppression is unwarranted. See Martin, 2016 WL 4493675, at *4. See also United States v. Hopper, 58 Fed. Appx. 619, 627 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The use of the exclusionary rule to remedy statutory violations is a discretionary matter.”) (citing Searp, 586 F.2d at 1123); United States v. Claridy, 601 F.3d 276, 283-84 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that even if a Rule 41 violation was found, it “would not justify suppression of the evidence seized by the warrant” because the purported violations of Rule 41(b) were “nonconstitutional,” “nonprejudicial,” and no evidence has shown that they were an “intentional and deliberate effort to disregard or circumvent Rule 41”).