With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 914 F.2d 565, 568 (4th Cir.1990) (labeling as “ministerial” claimed error that, government had not returned warrant to magistrate judge within prescribed period); United States v. Wyder, 674 F.2d 224, 225-26 (4th Cir.1982) (labeling as “ministerial” scrivenor’s error contained in copy of the warrant given to the defendant). Non-constitutional violations of Rule 41 warrant suppression only when the defendant is prejudiced by the violation, see Smith, 914 F.2d at 568; Wyder, 674 F.2d at 226, or when “there is evidence of intentional and deliberate disregard of a provision in the Rule,” Burke, 517 F.2d at 387. See Chaar, 137 F.3d at 362; Gerber, 994 F.2d at 1560; Negrete-Gonzales, 966 F.2d at 1283. First, we conclude that the failure of the team executing the wa , 1456 (9th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Having concluded that the Rule 41(d)

A: holding that because evidence supporting search warrant was illegally obtained evidence recovered by executing warrant was fruit of the illegal search
B: holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises
C: holding that search warrant was constitutionally defective because it did not require notice
D: holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant
C.