U.S. v. MARTIN, 13 CR 772-3. (2014)
Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20141028e41
Visitors: 21
Filed: Oct. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER ELAINE E. BUCKLO, District Judge. Defendant Julian Martin's has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Cole's Report and Recommendation that his motion to suppress wiretap and derivative evidence. Mr. Martin's objections do not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) that objections be specific. He argues generally that the wiretap did not meet the necessity requirement of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2518(1)(c). But as Judge Cole thoroughly articulated in his Report and Recommendation that a
Summary: ORDER ELAINE E. BUCKLO, District Judge. Defendant Julian Martin's has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Cole's Report and Recommendation that his motion to suppress wiretap and derivative evidence. Mr. Martin's objections do not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) that objections be specific. He argues generally that the wiretap did not meet the necessity requirement of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2518(1)(c). But as Judge Cole thoroughly articulated in his Report and Recommendation that a ..
More
ORDER
ELAINE E. BUCKLO, District Judge.
Defendant Julian Martin's has filed objections to Magistrate Judge Cole's Report and Recommendation that his motion to suppress wiretap and derivative evidence. Mr. Martin's objections do not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) that objections be specific. He argues generally that the wiretap did not meet the necessity requirement of 18 U.S.C. sec. 2518(1)(c). But as Judge Cole thoroughly articulated in his Report and Recommendation that a similar motion as to defendant Hoskins be denied, which Report and Recommendation is incorporated by reference in Judge Cole's Report and Recommendation as to Mr. Martin, and articulated further in the Report and Recommendation as to Mr. Martin, the government more than met this requirement. In addition, Mr. Martin refers to two alleged material omissions from the government's affidavit in support of its application. The fact that one narcotics supplier is not mentioned by CWI is not material. The Report also thoroughly discussed the possibility of release of CWI from jail and explained why this would not have influenced the necessity of obtaining a wiretap. Having considered de novo, each of Mr. Martin's objections, I reject the objections. I adopt the careful Report of Judge Cole. Mr. Martin's motion to suppress wiretap and derivative evidence (587) is denied.
Source: Leagle
