The Court reversed the defendant's conviction for "disturbing" federal wildlife property, holding that the statutory provision penalizing anyone who "otherwise violates" the federal wildlife regulations in question does not impose strict liability but rather has an implicit mens rea element requiring proof of criminal negligence.
The Court held that a knock-and-talk violation does not mandate suppression when a valid search warrant exists and the knock-and-announce violation has “nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence.” Here, the warrant was valid, and officers would have executed it and seized the evidence regardless of the alleged violation.
Regardless of any alleged failure to execute a search warrant within the time limit in violation of Rule 41, absent any other “constitutional infirmity,” suppression is unwarranted unless the defendant is prejudiced or if officers recklessly disregard the proper procedure. The defendant was not prejudiced here since probable cause continued to exist after the time limit.
In a marijuana farm case, the Court held that law enforcement did not exceed the scope of a permissible knock-and-talk when they returned to the defendant’s house with other narcotics officers after smelling marijuana at the property earlier in the day, as an officer's subjective intent is irrelevant. The Court also affirmed the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss the marijuana charges based on the Obama-era "Cole memo" directing prosecutors not to prosecute marijuana cases in states where marijuana is legal.