D.P.R.: State nighttime search rule on state warrant inapplicable in federal court

The fact a state nighttime search warrant doesn’t comply with state law doesn’t matter in federal court. It’s whether Rule 41 and the Fourth Amendment were complied with. Then, the defendant has to show prejudice. Also, the fact defendant had the “mental acuity” to attempt to deceive the officers during the search undermines defendant’s claim he didn’t have the acuity to consent. United States v. Vidal-Collazo, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5692 (D.P.R. Jan. 10, 2025).

“Avery actually presented his Fourth Amendment claim to the state trial court in his pretrial motion to suppress. He later presented his Fourth Amendment claim to the Michigan appellate courts. It is apparent that the state provided an opportunity for Avery to litigate his search-and-seizure issue and that nothing in the process frustrated that procedural opportunity. He may not now present his Fourth Amendment claim on habeas review.” Avery v. Burgess, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3799 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 8, 2025).*

Police executing a warrant on a business talked to employees and none of them were detained when they voluntarily talked to them. United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4083 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Custody, Issue preclusion, Reasonableness, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.