An indictment isn\u2019t invalid because it\u2019s based on an alleged illegal search. Sell v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182056 (D. Md. December 31, 2013) (\u00a7 2255 case):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Petitioner’s fifth argument appears to be that the Indictment was based on information obtained in violation of Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Apparently, Petitioner argues that the United States lacked probable cause to search his residence and seize his hard drives. The salient flaw in this argument is that the allegedly unlawful search and seizure of the evidence in question would not affect the validity of the indictment, even though the evidence may not be admissible at trial. See United States v. Calandra<\/a>, 414 U.S. 338, 351-52 (1974). Furthermore, as explained above, this argument is waived. For good measure, Petitioner agreed that the United States would have been able to prove the offense charged at trial. Accordingly, Petitioner’s fifth argument fails.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We learned this in law school, didn’t we? Well, you did. I was out when Calandra was decided.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading