Speedy trial does not start with the execution of a search warrant, even though the execution of the warrant was embarrassing to him. United States v. Mitrovich, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68460 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2019):
Mitrovich retorts that because the May 2015 search of his home caused him greater “embarrassment” than did the November 2018 indictment, the May 2015 search should be considered an official accusation. Doc. 22 at 2-3; Doc. 27 at 2-3. That argument fails. As the Supreme Court has explained, “even though the suspect’s knowledge of an ongoing criminal investigation will cause stress, discomfort, and perhaps a certain disruption in normal life,” the Speedy Trial Clause “does not … limit the length of a preindictment criminal investigation” or protect against reputational harm before criminal charges are pending. United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 312, 106 S. Ct. 648, 88 L. Ed. 2d 640 (1986) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Richardson, 780 F.3d at 813 (“Someone who is only the target of a criminal investigation has no right to have the government wrap up its investigation quickly and bring charges, even if the target is aware of the investigation.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).