Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. WHITE, 4:11CR196 JCH. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri Number: infdco20120615b39 Visitors: 28
Filed: Jun. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 14, 2012
Summary: ORDER JEAN C. HAMILTON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kevin Donnell White's Oral Motion to Suppress, Motion to Dismiss Indictment, Motion to Suppress Statements, Motion to Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence, and Motion to Suppress the Contents of Any and All Electronic Surveillance and Wiretapping (ECF Nos. 67, 229, 231, 232, 233), and Defendant Robbin Croskey's Oral Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 73). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), this matter was referred to Uni
More

ORDER

JEAN C. HAMILTON, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kevin Donnell White's Oral Motion to Suppress, Motion to Dismiss Indictment, Motion to Suppress Statements, Motion to Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence, and Motion to Suppress the Contents of Any and All Electronic Surveillance and Wiretapping (ECF Nos. 67, 229, 231, 232, 233), and Defendant Robbin Croskey's Oral Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 73). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge David D. Noce, who filed Reports and Recommendations on January 9 and 10, 2012. (ECF Nos. 316, 317). Magistrate Judge Noce recommended that the Court deny Defendants' motions. Defendants submitted objections to Magistrate Judge Noce's recommendations.

After de novo review of the entire record in this matter, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Defendants' motions be denied.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Reports and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge (ECF Nos. 316, 317) are SUSTAINED, ADOPTED, AND INCORPORATED herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Kevin Donnell White's Oral Motion to Suppress, Motion to Dismiss Indictment, Motion to Suppress Statements, Motion to Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence, and Motion to Suppress the Contents of Any and All Electronic Surveillance and Wiretapping (ECF Nos. 67, 229, 231, 232, 233) are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Robbin Croskey's Oral Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 73) is DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer