Court Opinion

ID: 9452514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:42:51.734648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:14.710713
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
In his petition for rehearing appellant argues that if the officer was justified in being “virtually certain” that appellant knew his purpose, he would not have informed appellant upon entering the dining room that he had a search warrant for the house. However, we see no inconsistency in this. As already indicated, Agent Sawyer and appellant were on a first-name basis. The officer was required by Rule 41(d), F.R.Cr.P. to, among other things, make an inventory of property taken in appellant’s presence and give him a copy of the warrant. It was only natural for the officer, upon personal confrontation with appellant, to say that he had the warrant, even though he was justified in being “virtually certain” that this too was a “useless gesture”.
Finding no merit in appellant’s contentions with respect to the motion to suppress or the sufficiency of the evidence, the petition for rehearing is hereby denied.