U.S. v. FILES, 13-3068-CR-S-MDH. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20150220c38
Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2015
Summary: ORDER DOUGLAS HARPOOL, District Judge. Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. 21), the Government's Response in Opposition to Motion to Suppress the Evidence (Doc. No. 28), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 32), and Defendant's Exceptions to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation as to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. 37). The Court also has reviewed the electronic transcript from the November 12,
Summary: ORDER DOUGLAS HARPOOL, District Judge. Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. 21), the Government's Response in Opposition to Motion to Suppress the Evidence (Doc. No. 28), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 32), and Defendant's Exceptions to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation as to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. 37). The Court also has reviewed the electronic transcript from the November 12, 2..
More
ORDER
DOUGLAS HARPOOL, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. 21), the Government's Response in Opposition to Motion to Suppress the Evidence (Doc. No. 28), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 32), and Defendant's Exceptions to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation as to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. 37). The Court also has reviewed the electronic transcript from the November 12, 2014, hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge on the motion to suppress. (Doc. No. 31).
After a careful and independent review of the parties' submissions, the records before the Court, as well as the applicable law, this Court agrees with and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 32). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 21).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
