even if it was so required, whether failing to do so should result in the remedy of suppression. As to the first question, the Court notes that Rule 41 “allows the copy of the warrant and the receipt to be given to the person from whose premises the property at issue was seized, even if that person is not the owner of the property.” In re U.S., 665 F.Supp.2d at 1221. “There is no separate requirement that the officer provide the warrant, a receipt, or any other form of notice to the owner of the property.” “Thus, when police seize a package from Federal Express (“FedEx”), they may leave a copy of the warrant and receipt at the FedEx facility and do not need to inform the sender or recipient of the package of the seizure.” Id.; United States v. Zacher, 465 F.3d 336, 339 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, “[w]hen the property to be
holding that the proper procedure to prove prior convictions is to offer a certified copy of the conviction holding a trial court commits fundamental error by failing to follow florida rule of juvenile procedure 8150 the juvenile rule equivalent of florida rule of criminal procedure 3830 recognizing rule holding that north dakota rule of criminal procedure 41d which the court noted was virtually identical to rule 41f3 now 41f1c was satisfied by leaving a copy of the warrant at the fedex facility holding that the notice requirement found in rule 41d is not required by the fourth amendment