a number of areas has recognized or developed exclusionary rules where evidence has been gained in violation of the accused’s rights under the Constitution, federal statutes, or federal rules of procedure."); see also Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 313-14, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958) (upholding suppression of evidence obtained in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3109, the federal “knock and announce” statute); Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449, 455, 77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957) (stating that suppression of statements obtained in violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 5 would be proper if failure to arraign "without unnecessary delay” provided "an opportunity for the extraction of a confession”). Nor have we. See, e.g., United States v. Gantt, 194 F.3d 987, 994 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Doe, 170 F.3d 1162, 1168
holding that consequence of deliberate violation of parental notification statute is suppression of statements made by defendant 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 technical violations of fedrcrimp 41 d require suppression if there was a deliberate disregard of the rule or if the defendant was prejudiced holding that laches dismissal is on the merits under federal rule 41 holding that only reckless or deliberate police conduct will trigger suppression