United States v. Skarda, No. 15-3889 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his convictions for distribution of methamphetamine, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, distribution of cocaine, and possession of a firearm by a drug user. Defendant argues that changing the address on the search warrant violated Rule 41 and Rule 4.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and further invalidated the search warrant. The court concluded that the phone conversation between an FBI agent and the magistrate judge was not recorded and thus violated Rule 4.1. However, as the district court correctly held, suppressing the evidence was not the correct remedy. In this case, the violation was not one of constitutional magnitude, defendant was not prejudiced by the violation, and there is no evidence of an intentional and deliberate or reckless disregard for the rule. The court also concluded that the affidavit established a clear nexus between drug dealing and defendant's residence, such that the mere address change had no effect on the validity of the warrant. The description was sufficient, and the district court properly determined that probable cause existed to search the property located at the address. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of witness intimidation where the testimony was used to show defendant was guilty of the charged crime, and was not excessively emotional or inflammatory. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Phone call from law enforcement agent to the district court magistrate judge to correct the address to be searched was not recorded and the conversation violated Rule 4.1 and Rule 41; however, the district court correctly determined that suppression of the evidence seized under the warrant was not the correct remedy as this violation was not of constitutional magnitude, did not prejudice defendant and there was no evidence of intentional and deliberate or reckless disregard for the rule; probable cause existed to search the property at the corrected address; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence that defendant sought to and did intimidate a witness; the evidence was used to show defendant was guilty of the charged crime and was not excessively emotional or inflammatory.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.