In executing a state search warrant, the warrant was not shown to the defendant before the search began. This does not violate Rule 41 or the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Mitchell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85741 (D. S.C. August 3, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
In reference to federal search warrants, the Supreme Court has held that \u201cneither the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the executing officer to serve the warrant on the owner before commencing the search.\u201d Groh v. Ramirez<\/a>, 540 U.S. 551, 562 n.5, 124 S. Ct. 1284, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1068 (2004) (emphasis added). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(f)(1)(C) simply states that \u201c[t]he officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt for the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premises, the property was taken or leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the place where the officer took the property.\u201d The officers executing the search warrant had no legal obligation to show defendant a copy of the search warrant when they entered his residence. Defendant admitted that he was unable to produce any state or federal case law stating otherwise.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In a credibility contest over whether consent was given for a search of the car, where the conversation was not recorded, the defendant\u2019s credibility was shot by his statements in the patrol car that were recorded that contradicted his suppression hearing testimony. United States v. Khaleel, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85077 (N.D. Iowa August 2, 2011)*:<\/p>\n
Most persuasive on the issue of credibility, however, is Defendant\u2019s testimony at the hearing that he did not know there were drugs in the bag. This testimony is inconsistent with statements made by Defendant while in the squad car prior to the search. Before the drugs were found, Defendant told the driver that \u201cI told him the bag is mine,\u201d \u201ctake care of my baby,\u201d \u201cvisit me in jail,\u201d and \u201che will find it.\u201d Defendant told the driver that \u201cyou don’t know nothing, it’s my bag.\u201d These statements are consistent with Defendant knowing that drugs would be found in the bag. If Defendant is willing to lie under oath at the hearing regarding his knowledge of drugs in the bag, then it is likely that he is also lying regarding the issue of consent to search.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading