Latu

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Isileli Latu appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and its imposition of a 240-month sentence following Latu’s guilty plea to a drug conspiracy and to being a felon in possession of firearms.

The district court did not err when it denied Latu’s motion to suppress. Although the officers failed to serve the search warrant at the start of the search, in violation of United States v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987, 1001 (9th Cir.1999) and Fed. R. Crim Pro. 41(f)(3), not every violation of Rule 41 requires suppression. Evidence is suppressed only where there has been a “fundamental” violation of Rule 41 — one which involves a constitutional violation. United States v. Johnson, 641 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir.1980). A “technical” violation of the Rule requires suppression only if there was a “deliberate disregard of the rule,” Gantt, 194 F.3d at 1005 , citing United States v. Negrete-Gonzales, 966 F.2d 1277, 1283 (9th Cir.1992), “or if the defendant was prejudiced.” Id.

Nothing in the record suggests that the violation of Rule 41 was “fundamental.” Latu raises no constitutional challenge to the warrant itself. There is no evidence in the record that…