CA4: Even if Rule 41 was violated by not leaving application for SW at scene it wasn’t prejudicial or intentional

“Here, the district court credited Agent Hayes’ testimony that he left a copy of the face of the warrant and an inventory of the items seized in the search, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(f)(1)(C), but that he did not leave attachments A and B to the warrant or the affidavit in support of his application for the search warrant. Even assuming arguendo that a violation of Rule 41 occurred, Boker has offered no evidence or argument, in the district court or on appeal, that this nonconstitutional violation was intentional or prejudicial. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Boker’s motion to suppress.” United States v. Boker, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 9044 (4th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020).

“Detective Wood’s affidavit recited that Turner had prior drug convictions for possession and manufacturing/delivery of controlled substances, that a search of the trash at his residence yielded evidence of illegal drug activity, and that a rental car was located in the driveway along with Turner’s own vehicle. The detective noted that based on his training and experience drug traffickers will often utilize rental cars to transport drugs and money. This information, alone, established probable cause to issue a warrant to search Turner’s residence for evidence of drug trafficking and weapons.” Defendant’s challenge to information from the CI is moot because it doesn’t matter to the outcome. United States v. Turner, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8969 (8th Cir. Mar. 23, 2020).*

This entry was posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, Probable cause, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.