The court\u2019s credibility determination is that the warrant here was executed after 6:00 a.m., not before. Even if they arrived early, they didn\u2019t enter until 6:00 a.m. \u201cAssuming, arguendo, the officers searched Defendant’s home before 6:00 a.m., the facts demonstrate the search would have still occurred. Law enforcement was explicitly authorized to execute the search warrant after 6:00 a.m. Thus, the search would have still occurred if they had waited until after 6:00 a.m. Based on the facts adduced at the hearing, Defendant has not shown he suffered prejudice due to the alleged Rule 41 violation.\u201d United States v. Montgomery, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174310 (W.D. Mo. Sep. 7, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s history of drug use and the offense justified a warrantless search condition on supervised release. United States v. Williams, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25845 (4th Cir. Sep. 29, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The evidence at trial \u201cpreponderates\u201d against the trial court\u2019s finding that no traffic offense occurred. Reversed. State v. Poe, 2023 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 382 (Sep. 29, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was properly convicted of tampering with evidence for wiping his phones and MacBook to eliminate evidence of child pornography. Behrens v. Commonwealth, 2023 Ky. LEXIS 293 (Sep. 28, 2023).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The court\u2019s credibility determination is that the warrant here was executed after 6:00 a.m., not before. Even if they arrived early, they didn\u2019t enter until 6:00 a.m. \u201cAssuming, arguendo, the officers searched Defendant’s home before 6:00 a.m., the facts demonstrate … Continue reading