Villalba

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. Even if the individual officer in this case acted “in good faith in executing what he or she believe[d] to be the Rule,” United States v. Williamson, 439 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir.2006), I must conclude that the regular practice of the Glendale and Los Angeles Police Departments to begin searches prior to the arrival of the warrant is a deliberate disregard of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 and therefore warrants suppression.

In United States v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987 (9th Cir.1999), we stated that “[ajbsent 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.” Id. at 1001 ; see also Williamson, 439 F.3d at 1132 (reaffirming the viability of the Gantt rule). 1 In Gantt , we emphasized the constitutional and social values served by providing the warrant up-front to the owner of the location to be searched. That procedure reassures the owner of the legality of the search and makes it less likely that he will resort to confrontation and violence. Id. at 1001-02 . Furthermore, requiring a copy of the warrant to be present ensures that the officers…

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant appeals his conviction on drug charges and argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress drugs and other evidence discovered by police when they executed a search warrant at his residence. We affirm.

Violations of Rule 41(d) require suppression only if there was a “deliberate disregard of the rule or if the defendant was prejudiced.” United States v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987, 1005 (9th Cir.1999). Where the agent executing the warrant is unaware of the Rule but acts in good faith in executing what he or she believes to be the Rule, he *567 or she has not acted in deliberate disregard of it; thus suppression is not appropriate, assuming that the officer’s actions result in no prejudice to the defendant and that the error does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. United States v. Williamson, 489 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir.2006).

This case involved a violation of Rule 41(d) because the officers entered the residence prior to obtaining a search warrant, however, the officers did not commence the search until the warrant had been issued. The actions of law enforcement did not amount to a deliberate disregard of the rule and…