Even if defendant was not shown a search warrant during the search (a fact in dispute), that\u2019s not a ground to suppress. It violates Rule 41, but not the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Harley, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49396 (M.D. Pa. April 10, 2014):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Without resolving the issue of credibility as to whether Mr. Harley was presented with a signed and dated warrant during the search, the Court will deny Mr. Harley’s motion to suppress. As the government explained, the chief issue regarding the suppression of evidence here is whether a warrant issued, not whether the government presented or left a signed and dated copy of the warrant with Mr. Harley during the search. See United States v. Askew, No. 08-784, 2010 WL 457535, at *10 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2010) (“Even though the copy of the search warrant left at petitioner’s residence was unsigned, that is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment or Rule 41 … such a “defect” would be a technical one, which does not invalidate the search or require suppression of evidence.); United States v. Lipford, 203 F.3d 259, 270 (4th Cir. 2000) (“Presuming that [defendant] is correct that some copies of the warrant were signed but that his was not, this was, at most, a technical violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41[…], and not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Absent a demonstration of prejudice or bad faith\u2014neither of which is present here\u2014suppression of evidence is not the proper remedy for a violation of Rule 41[…].”). The government demonstrated that a search warrant issued in this case. See Gvt. Ex. 1. Therefore, Mr. Harley’s Motion will be denied.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Even if defendant was not shown a search warrant during the search (a fact in dispute), that\u2019s not a ground to suppress. It violates Rule 41, but not the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Harley, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49396 … Continue reading