The fact a state nighttime search warrant doesn\u2019t comply with state law doesn\u2019t matter in federal court. It\u2019s whether Rule 41 and the Fourth Amendment were complied with. Then, the defendant has to show prejudice. Also, the fact defendant had the \u201cmental acuity\u201d to attempt to deceive the officers during the search undermines defendant\u2019s claim he didn\u2019t have the acuity to consent. United States v. Vidal-Collazo, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5692 (D.P.R. Jan. 10, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cAvery actually presented his Fourth Amendment claim to the state trial court in his pretrial motion to suppress. He later presented his Fourth Amendment claim to the Michigan appellate courts. It is apparent that the state provided an opportunity for Avery to litigate his search-and-seizure issue and that nothing in the process frustrated that procedural opportunity. He may not now present his Fourth Amendment claim on habeas review.\u201d Avery v. Burgess, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3799 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 8, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Police executing a warrant on a business talked to employees and none of them were detained when they voluntarily talked to them. United States v. Johnson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4083 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The fact a state nighttime search warrant doesn\u2019t comply with state law doesn\u2019t matter in federal court. It\u2019s whether Rule 41 and the Fourth Amendment were complied with. Then, the defendant has to show prejudice. Also, the fact defendant had … Continue reading