S.D.Ga.: Lack of announcement doesn’t invoke exclusionary rule; def argued he was entitled to announcement to be able to dispose of his drugs

Defendant claims his search was invalid for lack of knock-and-announce because, if they had announced, he could have destroyed the drugs and wouldn’t have been charged [apparently oblivious to the fact that’s one of the justification for dispensing with announcement]. Under Hudson, the exclusionary rule wouldn’t have applied anyway. [Stone v. Powell not cited.] Timmerman v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144745 (S.D. Ga. July 25, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144658 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2019).

The agency had the authority to conduct inspections of appellee’s newly constructed apartments to see whether they were up to code, but there was no finding by the district court that the administrative warrant was issued on probable cause. Remanded. N.M. Constr. Indus. Div. & Manufactured Hous. Div. v. Cohen, 2019 N.M. App. LEXIS 109 (Aug. 23, 2019).

This entry was posted in Administrative search, Knock and announce. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.