Fourth Amendment compels automatic suppression only where there is a “fundamental” violation of Rule 41; fundamental violations are those “rendering] the search unconstitutional under traditional fourth amendment standards.” United States v. Vasser, 648 F.2d 507, 510 (9th Cir. 1980) (citing United States v. Burke, 517 F.2d 377, 386 (2d Cir. 1975)), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 928 (1981). And the Gantt court explicitly found a deliberate violation, thus avoiding the question of whether the violation was “technical” or “fundamental.” 194 F.3d at 994. The Gantt defendant waited three hours and was never able to examine a complete copy of the warrant. Here, there was substantial evidence that Aase received a full copy of the warrant only minutes into the search. 673, 677-78, 495 P.2d 682 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Compare State v. Ettenhofer, 119 Wn. App.
holding that under former rcw 6933430 1959 although preferable if defendant is served personally with a copy of the search warrant it was not reversible error when defendant received the warrant the next day holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that failure to deliver a copy of search warrant and itemized copy of the warrant return to defendant in absence of showing of injury reveals no error holding suppression not required for technical violation under former statute governing execution of a search warrant for dangerous drugs where warrant was read aloud and served on householder but not served on defendant as required by statute