W.D.La.: Dismissal of indictment is not remedy for DEA allegedly violating its policy manual, even if it did

Defendant’s general allegation that the DEA officers violated their own policy manual isn’t specific and doesn’t even rise to the level of dismissal of the indictment, which is what he alleges. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that violations of agency regulations are not grounds for applying the exclusionary rule when a defendant does not show that his constitutional rights were violated. United States v. Caceres, ….” United States v. Willis, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181064 (W.D. La. Sept. 22, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180164 (W.D. La. Oct. 17, 2019).

Defendant said nothing to object to a search of his car. He essentially said he was confused by it all. Found to be by consent. United States v. Skinner, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180491 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2019).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.