U.S. v. JONES, 15-29-(1)-ART. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky
Number: infdco20151106a38
Visitors: 20
Filed: Nov. 05, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2015
Summary: ORDER AMUL R. THAPAR , District Judge . The defendant, Jeffrey Wayne Jones, filed a motion to suppress. R. 29. In this motion, Jones argued that items found in his vehicle during a traffic stop and his statements to law enforcement following discovery of these items should be suppressed. Id. at 1. On September 15, 2015, Magistrate Judge Hanly Ingram held a hearing on the motion to suppress. See R. 49 (minute entry order from hearing). Following that hearing, Judge Ingram issued a Report
Summary: ORDER AMUL R. THAPAR , District Judge . The defendant, Jeffrey Wayne Jones, filed a motion to suppress. R. 29. In this motion, Jones argued that items found in his vehicle during a traffic stop and his statements to law enforcement following discovery of these items should be suppressed. Id. at 1. On September 15, 2015, Magistrate Judge Hanly Ingram held a hearing on the motion to suppress. See R. 49 (minute entry order from hearing). Following that hearing, Judge Ingram issued a Report ..
More
ORDER
AMUL R. THAPAR, District Judge.
The defendant, Jeffrey Wayne Jones, filed a motion to suppress. R. 29. In this motion, Jones argued that items found in his vehicle during a traffic stop and his statements to law enforcement following discovery of these items should be suppressed. Id. at 1. On September 15, 2015, Magistrate Judge Hanly Ingram held a hearing on the motion to suppress. See R. 49 (minute entry order from hearing). Following that hearing, Judge Ingram issued a Report and Recommendation that recommended that the defendant's motion to suppress be denied. R. 54. Specifically, Judge Ingram found that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to stop Jones's vehicle and held that the stop—and subsequent search—did not violate Jones's rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. at 9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b), the parties had fourteen days to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. That deadline passed without any objection from Jones or the government.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) The Report and Recommendation, R. 54, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
(2) The defendant's motion to suppress, R. 29, is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
