evil in mind, the court held that blanket suppression was mandated when a warrant was executed in flagrant disregard for- its terms. Moreover, it is clear from the face of the opinion that the court was focusing on the actual execution of the warrant rather than the mental state of the officers at the time they obtained the warrant. Medlin II, 842 F.2d at 1196, 1199. We find nothing in Medlin II requiring that a warrant be obtained in bad faith or upon a ruse before the remedy of blanket suppression is appropriate. This Circuit has spoken to the issue and has determined that blanket suppression is mandated when the executing officers flagrantly disregard the particular terms of the warrant. We are bound to apply that rule of law. See In re Smith, 10 F.3d 723, 724 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 53, 130
holding that a threejudge panel may reexamine circuit precedent where congress has retroactively clarified the meaning of the statute at issue holding that one panel cannot overrule a prior panels published decision holding that threejudge panel cannot disregard or overrule circuit precedent holding that in the absence of an intervening supreme court decision only the en banc court may overrule a decision by a threejudge panel holding that a threejudge panel may depart from circuit precedent that has not been expressly overruled when an intervening en banc or supreme court decision has undercut the theory or reasoning underlying the prior circuit precedent in such a way that the cases are clearly irreconcilable