Defense counsel\u2019s acceptance of a warrant was a waiver of the service requirements for a warrant in Rule 41. It was also otherwise valid. United States v. Reynoso, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40555 (D.P.R. Mar. 4, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe search and seizures appear to have been conducted in accordance with the Warrants; accordingly, the Court sees no evidence of a deliberate attempt to conceal information from the Defendant in order to expand the scope of the search. The facts of record simply do not support a finding that the police conduct in this case constitutes a deliberate abuse of the process, but rather, at worst, an unfortunate oversight. As such, the exclusionary rule does not apply.\u201d United States v. Perez, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41184 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cHere, Smith cannot establish a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the knife been successfully excluded. In the overall evidentiary picture, the knife does not occupy a central role. Even without the knife’s admission, the State’s case would have remained strong, as it was supported by the following robust evidence: (1) [the victim\u2019s] testimony about the rape; (2) Scott’s testimony that he was outside the locked apartment during the incident, witnessed Smith leaving, and then immediately heard [her] recount the incident while \u2018crying hysterically\u2019; [and DNA]. State v. Smith, 2025 Utah App. LEXIS 36 (Mar. 6, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defense counsel\u2019s acceptance of a warrant was a waiver of the service requirements for a warrant in Rule 41. It was also otherwise valid. United States v. Reynoso, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40555 (D.P.R. Mar. 4, 2025). \u201cThe search and … Continue reading