United States v. Preston
This text of 99 F. App'x 736 (United States v. Preston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Leo Preston appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. He argues law enforcement officers’ failure to serve him with the search warrant before commencing a search violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment and Criminal Rule 41(d). We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress. Our study of the appellate record, the applicable law, and the parties briefs, convince us that the officers did not violate Preston’s Fourth Amendment rights. “[N]either the Fourth Amendment nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the executing officer to serve the warrant on the owner before commencing the search.” Groh v. Ramirez, — U.S. -, -n. 5, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 1292 n. 5, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004). We thus affirm the district court’s denial of Preston’s motion to suppress.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
99 F. App'x 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-preston-ca6-2004.