This search warrant was executed at 6 am, and the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress. \u201cWhile 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. [\u00b6] The officers’ forcible entry into Joyce’s apartment–after knocking and announcing their presence and waiting thirty to fifty seconds–was also not unreasonable. [\u00b6] To begin, the thirty-to-fifty-second wait was reasonable because the officers on the scene \u2018had a general idea of the apartment’s size and possible layout,\u2019 which was only one floor with one or two bedrooms.\u201d United States v. Joyce, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6603 (2d Cir. Mar. 20, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s 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).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A tribal search warrant was issued for defendant\u2019s 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\u2019t have standing to challenge the search of another person\u2019s house. United States v. Floyd, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48793 (D.S.D. Mar. 18, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This search warrant was executed at 6 am, and the district court erred in granting the motion to suppress. \u201cWhile 6:00 a.m. is the earliest time provided, it cannot be said that executing a warrant in accordance with its text–which … Continue reading