Opinion ID: 792058
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Provide Search Warrant at Outset of Search

Text: 75 At the evidentiary hearing, there was some discrepancy as to the length of time after the search began before Smith and his wife received a copy of the warrant. It is clear that the search did not start as soon as the agents entered the home, as they initially conducted a safety sweep for approximately fifteen minutes. The district court established that a delay of thirty to forty-five minutes occurred before the Smiths received the warrant. 76 Under United States v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987, 1001 (9th Cir.1999), [a]bsent exigent circumstances, Rule 41(d) requires service of the warrant at the outset of the search on persons present at the search of their premises. While the court recognized that `technical' violations of Rule 41(d) require suppression only if there was a `deliberate disregard of the rule' or if the defendant was prejudiced, it held that suppression was justified due to the deliberate violation in Gantt's case. Id. at 1005. Gantt was not served with the search warrant until after she was arrested, hours after the search and hours after she requested to see the warrant. Id. at 1000. 77 In Smith's case, there is neither deliberate disregard of Rule 41(d) nor any prejudice. Gantt's interpretation of Rule 41(d) to require service of the warrant at the outset of the search was issued in 1999, whereas the search of Smith's home took place in 1997. Agent Adams's testimony reveals he did not know of an obligation to show the warrant at the outset of the search—Adams never before had presented a warrant at the time of entry. Instead, his team typically did a safety sweep first, as was done in the Smith home. 78 Furthermore, unlike in Gantt, after Mrs. Smith asked for the warrant, she got one. The timing may be disputed—ten minutes after the request or half an hour later—but regardless, she and her husband received the warrant near the outset of the search. As the district court found, the delay was not unreasonable. 79 Nor was the delay prejudicial. Upon receiving the warrant, Mrs. Smith just kind of glanced at it and believes that her husband might have looked at it more than she did. She admits that she chose not to review the warrant. Neither of the Smiths disputed the warrant after having access to it, and the search went on for another several hours. Thus, under Gantt, there was only a technical violation of Rule 41(d), which does not require suppression.