CA6: Codef’s appeal from same suppression hearing already affirmed, so that’s law of the case [even though he didn’t get to brief it, so how fair is that?]

The codefendant’s appeal on the same grounds, from the same suppression hearing was affirmed in July. That’s law of the case as to this defendant. United States v. Thompson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30910 (6th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019).

“Carter also argues that the search was improperly executed for several reasons. First, he says that officers violated the ‘knock-and-announce’ rule. See 18 U.S.C. § 3109. But that rule applies only when officers enter by force; here, they were invited in. Id. Second, he says the officers violated the Fourth Amendment because they did not show the search warrant until asked. But here nothing required the officers to present the warrant any sooner than they did. … Third, Carter says that his federal prosecution effectively precluded him from challenging the search on state-law grounds. But he has not identified any aspect of the search that violated state (or federal) law.” [And state grounds would be moot under Virginia v. Moore.] The government also didn’t need a search warrant for his IP information. United States v. Carter, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30734 (6th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019).*