return), no attempt was made to substantiate a connection between the seizure of the majority of the seized items and the terms of the warrant. As candidly admitted by Martin, the officers simply “took anything of value” and did not adhere to the specific terms of the warrant. Dist. Ct. Order at 8-9 (emphasis added). In light of these factual findings, the district court concluded that the execution of the warrant was constitutionally defective. In fact, Judge Seay concluded that he could not “imagine a more pronounced case of a search warrant execution conducted in flagrant disregard for its terms.” Id. at 10. The district court’s findings of fact are amply supported in the record and are not clearly erroneous. See O’Connor v. R.F. Lafferty & Co., 965 F.2d 893, 901 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, it is with these facts in mind
recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous holding that this court will only set aside district courts factual findings when they are clearly erroneous holding that the lower court is the factfinding body and that its findings of fact will not be set aside on appellate review unless they are clearly erroneous holding that family courts conclusions will not be set aside if supported by findings holding that a factual finding may be set aside if it rests on an erroneous view of the law