Police had a search warrant for drugs based on an informant buy. When executing the warrant, lifting floorboards was within the scope of search. Although there was only a small quantity of drugs involved, the floorboard could be removed by hand and without tools. United States v. Handy, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34739 (D. Mass. May 11, 2007).<\/p>\n
A technical violation of the pen register statute, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3122, was a statutory violation only and not a constitutional violation. Therefore, suppression was not required under Smith v. Maryland<\/em>. Congress did not provide for a suppression remedy, so the court would not. (Hudson was cited at the end of a footnote.) United States v. German, 486 F.3d 849 (5th Cir. 2007):<\/p>\n Moreover, even in constitutional cases the Supreme Court has recently cautioned against expanding the exclusionary rule, emphasizing that suppression is a “last resort” that generates “substantial social costs.” Hudson v. Michigan,<\/em> 126 S. Ct. 2159, 2163 (2006).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Brief delay of a FedEx package in transit at Orange County airport for a dog sniff because it was selected for a dog sniff with six others was not an unreasonable interference with the movement of the package. The dog alerted and a warrant was obtained. United States v. Quoc Viet Hoang, 486 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2007).*<\/p>\n Defendant’s unconditional plea waived his search issue. If he wants to raise that issue, it should be by a post-conviction petition. United States v. Tucker, 232 Fed. Appx. 597 (7th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n Stop of defendant’s rental car for having tags that did not match the car was reasonable. United States v. Salazar, 245 Fed. Appx. 1 (11th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading