Defendant questioned the timing of the search and his arrest. \u201cThe Court is unaware of any law that dictates that a search warrant must be executed at a time that is most convenient to the owner or occupant of a premises.\u201d United States v. Cardenas, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143750 (N.D. Ohio September 21, 2010), R&R 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77791 (N.D. Ohio May 5, 2011):<\/p>\n
The defendant suggests that his seizure was unnecessary because the officers deliberately delayed in executing the search warrant until he had returned from his errands. Yet, he concedes that agents had only obtained the warrant shortly before the defendant had returned, and had no legal justification to enter his premises prior to obtaining the warrant. The Court is unaware of any law that dictates that a search warrant must be executed at a time that is most convenient to the owner or occupant of a premises.<\/p>\n
Even so, Summers expressly recognized that the government’s interest \u201cin the orderly completion of the search\u201d is often \u201cfacilitated\u201d when \u201cthe occupants of premises are present.\u201d 452 U.S. at 703. In light of the fact that the warrant allowed for execution \u201cin the daytime 6:00 am to 10:00 pm […] on or before September 21, 2010,\u201d officers did nothing improper by executing the warrant after the defendant returned. See generally, United States v. Cochran, 939 F.2d 337 (6th Cir. 1991) (agents executing search warrant may require occupant who has departed the premises to be searched to re-enter residence and remain there while the search is conducted); United States v. Head, 216 Fed. Appx. 543 (6th Cir. 2007) (officers properly apprehended and detained the defendant during a search of her residence after she had left).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading