the process of logging into Playpen as taking a “virtual trip” to Virginia and so permitting the installation of the NIT in the Eastern District of Virginia). The Government additionally argues that the NIT warrant was issued by a magistrate judge in the district with the strongest known connection to the search. While this point may be true, it does not follo Mr. Taylor was prejudiced by the Rule 41 violation. Although the Eleventh Circuit has not interpreted “the search might not have occurred” to the same extent as other circuits, this court concurs with the majority’s reasoning in Krueger that the correct standard inquires “whether the issuing federal magistrate judge could have complied with the rule.” See Krueger, 809 F.3d at 1116; Adams, 2016 WL 4212079, at *8 (M.D. Fla.) (<HOLDING>). The use of Tor made recovering Defendant’s IP
holding that the defendant was prejudiced by the rule 41 violation because had the magistrate judge followed rule 41b the search of defendants computer would not have occurred holding that laches dismissal is on the merits under federal rule 41 holding that the defendant was denied due process because the procedural rule was not followed in any respect by the trial court holding that the fact that a judge had ruled against the defendant is not a basis for finding the judge prejudiced holding that technical violations of fedrcrimp 41 d require suppression if there was a deliberate disregard of the rule or if the defendant was prejudiced