CA2: District court erred in suppressing a SW executed at 6 am where SW and Rule 41 say 6 am to 10 pm

This search warrant was executed at 6 am, and the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress. “While 6:00 a.m. is the earliest time provided, it cannot be said that executing a warrant in accordance with its text–which directly mirrors Rule 41–is unreasonable. [No law was cited.] Given that we review the officers’ actions objectively, we see no reason to hold that the officers’ decision to execute the search in line with the warrant and the federal rules was unreasonable. [¶] The officers’ forcible entry into Joyce’s apartment–after knocking and announcing their presence and waiting thirty to fifty seconds–was also not unreasonable. [¶] To begin, the thirty-to-fifty-second wait was reasonable because the officers on the scene ‘had a general idea of the apartment’s size and possible layout,’ which was only one floor with one or two bedrooms.” United States v. Joyce, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6603 (2d Cir. Mar. 20, 2024).

Defendant’s tail light was out and that objectively justified this stop. United States v. Blakeney, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6593 (3d Cir. Mar. 20, 2024).*

A tribal search warrant was issued for defendant’s car which was attacked as not complying with Rule 41 [which is irrelevant]. It was issued with probable cause and the good faith exception would apply. But, the search of the vehicle was valid under the automobile exception. She also didn’t have standing to challenge the search of another person’s house. United States v. Floyd, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48793 (D.S.D. Mar. 18, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Automobile exception, Knock and announce, Nighttime search, Reasonable suspicion, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.