U.S. v. Guzman, 1:17-CR-405-2-TWT. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190221c68
Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. , District Judge . This is a criminal case. It is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation [Doc. 81] of the Magistrate Judge recommending denying the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 40], the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Cellular Phone Search [Doc. 41], and the Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars [Doc. 44]. For the reasons set forth in the thorough and well-reasoned Report & Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the collective
Summary: ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. , District Judge . This is a criminal case. It is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation [Doc. 81] of the Magistrate Judge recommending denying the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 40], the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Cellular Phone Search [Doc. 41], and the Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars [Doc. 44]. For the reasons set forth in the thorough and well-reasoned Report & Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the collective ..
More
ORDER
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR., District Judge.
This is a criminal case. It is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation [Doc. 81] of the Magistrate Judge recommending denying the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 40], the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Cellular Phone Search [Doc. 41], and the Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars [Doc. 44]. For the reasons set forth in the thorough and well-reasoned Report & Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the collective knowledge doctrine to find that there was probable cause to search the truck based upon reasonable suspicion that there was heroin in the vehicle. The Defendant voluntarily gave his consent to search the truck. The Court approves and adopts the Report & Recommendation [Doc. 81] as the judgment of the Court. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 40], the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Cellular Phone Search [Doc. 41], and the Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars [Doc. 44] are DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
