Defendant claims his search was invalid for lack of knock-and-announce because, if they had announced, he could have destroyed the drugs and wouldn\u2019t have been charged [apparently oblivious to the fact that\u2019s one of the justification for dispensing with announcement]. Under Hudson, the exclusionary rule wouldn\u2019t have applied anyway. [Stone v. Powell not cited.] Timmerman v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144745 (S.D. Ga. July 25, 2019), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144658 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2019).<\/p>\n
The agency had the authority to conduct inspections of appellee\u2019s newly constructed apartments to see whether they were up to code, but there was no finding by the district court that the administrative warrant was issued on probable cause. Remanded. N.M. Constr. Indus. Div. & Manufactured Hous. Div. v. Cohen, 2019 N.M. App. LEXIS 109 (Aug. 23, 2019).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant claims his search was invalid for lack of knock-and-announce because, if they had announced, he could have destroyed the drugs and wouldn\u2019t have been charged [apparently oblivious to the fact that\u2019s one of the justification for dispensing with announcement]. … Continue reading