D.S.C.: Court is “troubled” by methods of search, but exclusion isn’t remedy

Defendant’s claim there wasn’t any search warrant and that he wasn’t shown one is rejected. He came out of the house with his hands up and empty, and an officer is shown on bodycam handing him a paper and him reading it. The court finds that has to be the warrant. The court is “troubled” by the method of execution of another warrant, but doesn’t find exclusion is required. United States v. Ladson, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207922 n.2 (D.S.C. Nov. 15, 2022):

Mr. Ladson also challenges the manner of execution of another search warrant on September 9, 2020. ECF No. 39 at 10; Tr. at 102:2-5. While this Court continues to be troubled by the seemingly excessive actions of law enforcement on that occasion, suppression is not an available remedy. See Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 594, 126 S. Ct. 2159, 165 L. Ed. 2d 56 (2006). Moreover, to the extent Ladson argues that execution of the warrant could be so unreasonable and extreme as to trigger a suppression remedy, such an argument is foreclosed by the comparative fact pattern in a similar case. See United States v. Ankeny, 502 F.3d 829, 832-34 (9th Cir. 2007).

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Scope of search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.