Defendant\u2019s general allegation that the DEA officers violated their own policy manual isn\u2019t specific and doesn\u2019t even rise to the level of dismissal of the indictment, which is what he alleges. \u201cIndeed, 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, ….\u201d 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).<\/p>\n
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).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s general allegation that the DEA officers violated their own policy manual isn\u2019t specific and doesn\u2019t even rise to the level of dismissal of the indictment, which is what he alleges. \u201cIndeed, the Supreme Court has held that violations of … Continue reading