U.S. v. FIERROS, CR 12-150-TUC-JGZ (GEE). (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20120627909
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 22, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 22, 2012
Summary: ORDER JENNIFER G. ZIPPS, District Judge. Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds (Doc. 31) that recommends denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress. (Docs. 22 & 24.) 1 As throughly explained by Magistrate Judge Edmonds, Defendant is not entitled to suppression of the evidence seized because the stop of his vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion. 2 As Defendant's objections do not undermine the analysis and proper
Summary: ORDER JENNIFER G. ZIPPS, District Judge. Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds (Doc. 31) that recommends denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress. (Docs. 22 & 24.) 1 As throughly explained by Magistrate Judge Edmonds, Defendant is not entitled to suppression of the evidence seized because the stop of his vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion. 2 As Defendant's objections do not undermine the analysis and proper ..
More
ORDER
JENNIFER G. ZIPPS, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds (Doc. 31) that recommends denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress. (Docs. 22 & 24.)1 As throughly explained by Magistrate Judge Edmonds, Defendant is not entitled to suppression of the evidence seized because the stop of his vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion.2 As Defendant's objections do not undermine the analysis and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Edmonds, Defendant's objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 31) is accepted and adopted.
(2) Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Docs. 22 & 24) is denied.
FootNotes
1. Duplicate copies of the Motion to Suppress were filed at Docs. 22 & 24; it appears that Doc. 22 was a deficient filing because it was missing the attorney's signature.
2. The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).
Source: Leagle
