U.S. v. Barker, 4:16-00084-CR-RK. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20180614a25
Visitors: 19
Filed: Jun. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Curtis David Barker's Motion to Suppress Evidence with Suggestions ("Motion to Suppress"). (Doc. 28.) Chief United States Magistrate Judge Matt J. Whitworth held a hearing on the Motion to Suppress and issued a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 41.) Defendant then filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (doc. 44), and the Government filed a response (doc. 4
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK , District Judge . Before the Court is Defendant Curtis David Barker's Motion to Suppress Evidence with Suggestions ("Motion to Suppress"). (Doc. 28.) Chief United States Magistrate Judge Matt J. Whitworth held a hearing on the Motion to Suppress and issued a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 41.) Defendant then filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (doc. 44), and the Government filed a response (doc. 47..
More
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant Curtis David Barker's Motion to Suppress Evidence with Suggestions ("Motion to Suppress"). (Doc. 28.) Chief United States Magistrate Judge Matt J. Whitworth held a hearing on the Motion to Suppress and issued a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 41.) Defendant then filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation (doc. 44), and the Government filed a response (doc. 47).
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b)(3), "[a] district judge must consider de novo any objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation." After an independent, de novo review of the record, the applicable law, Defendant's objection and original motion, and the Government's response, the Court adopts Judge Whitworth's Report and Recommendation in its entirety.1
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) Defendant Curtis David Barker's Motion to Suppress (doc. 28) is DENIED; and
(2) Chief United States Magistrate Judge Matt J. Whitworth's Report and Recommendation (doc. 41) shall be attached to and made a part of this Order.
FootNotes
1. During the hearing, Defendant's counsel elicited what appeared to be testimony regarding whether the police conducted an improper custodial interrogation of Defendant. However, Defendant's counsel confirmed during the hearing that Defendant's "argument is adequately stated in [his] written Motion to Suppress." (Doc. 40 at 94:19-21.) The motion seeks "to suppress all physical evidence and testimony relating to such evidence" under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Doc. 28 at 1-2.) The Court construes this as a request (motion) to suppress only physical evidence and not statements made by the Defendant surrounding the seizure of the physical evidence. The Court acknowledges that the Report and Recommendation relies on statements made by the Defendant to support its finding of probable cause to search the Defendant's vehicle. The Court further finds and concludes that, even if the Defendant's statements made prior to being advised of his Miranda rights could be considered suppressible upon a proper motion, the physical evidence recovered from the Defendant's vehicle is not suppressible because the police had sufficient probable cause regardless of the statements made by the Defendant. (Doc. 40 at 66:7-20.)
Source: Leagle
