It\u2019s not clear that the executing officers entered defendant\u2019s house before 6:00 am in violation of Rule 41(d). Even if they did, \u201c[t]here is no evidence that if the agents had waited a few minutes more, the search would have been less abrasive. If the agents violated Rule 41(d), Logan was not prejudiced by that violation. The Court OVERRULES Logan’s fourth objection.\u201d United States v. Luck, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72448 (W.D. Tenn. May 28, 2014), R&R 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73323 (W.D. Tenn. January 27, 2014).<\/p>\n
The officer here did not rely on just the CI\u2019s tips: It was the beginning point of a two month investigation, that came to fruition with reasonable suspicion for defendant\u2019s detention. United States v. Barnes, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72556 (E.D. N.C. February 25, 2014).<\/p>\n
This prisoner\u2019s search and seizure claim is barred by Heck as attacking his conviction and barred by time as outside the statute of limitations. Schield v. Brawner<\/a>, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 9865 (5th Cir. May 28, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It\u2019s not clear that the executing officers entered defendant\u2019s house before 6:00 am in violation of Rule 41(d). Even if they did, \u201c[t]here is no evidence that if the agents had waited a few minutes more, the search would have … Continue reading