Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Criminal Law
: Fourth AmendmentD.V.I.: Delayed notice of sneak and peek does not per se require exclusion
By John Wesley Hall, Jr.
ADVERTISEMENTS
Delayed notice of a covert entry under 18 U.S.C. § 3103 does not per se justify exclusion of the evidence. United States v. Christopher, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28240 (D. V.I. March 31, 2009):
What constitutes a reasonable time for delayed notice will depend upon the circumstances of each individual case and the Court bears in mind the ongoing nature of the investigation as well as the manner in which the delayed notice search warrant was executed in this case. See id. at 1337. The Court takes into account that, generally, a covert entry search is less intrusive than a conventional search with physical seizure because the latter deprives the owner not only of privacy but also of the use of his property. See Villegas, 899 F.2d at 1337. It is also the Court's perception that a covert entry search is less intrusive than a wiretap or video camera surveillance because "the physical search is of relatively short duration, focuses the search specifically on the items listed in the warrant, and produces information as of a given moment, whereas the electronic surveillance is ongoing and indiscriminate ...continue to full postFull post as published by Fourth Amendment on April 09, 2009 (boomark / email).
Lawsuits and Settlements
Darvon
Other Propoxyphene-Containing Meds to Require Stronger Warnings
Delayed Diagnosis Results in $1.1M Settlement
Delayed Diagnosis Results in $1.1M Settlement>
Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
has been accused of not doing enough to keep addicted gamblers who have signed up for a "self-exclusion" program out of casinos.
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

A sneak peek at the cover of my next book
The First Sneak Peek at Solo Practice University
Everything You Need To Know About Structured Settlements
Reader Piqued By French Mutilations







