U.S. v. Smith, 17-CR-03059-01-MDH. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20181003f92
Visitors: 16
Filed: Oct. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2018
Summary: ORDER DOUGLAS HARPOOL , District Judge . Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 22), Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 51), the Government's Response in Opposition to Motion to Suppress the Evidence (Doc. 52), and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 56). The Court has also reviewed the electronic transcripts from the proceedings held on January 24, 2018 (Doc. 50) and from the proceedings held on the Motion t
Summary: ORDER DOUGLAS HARPOOL , District Judge . Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 22), Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 51), the Government's Response in Opposition to Motion to Suppress the Evidence (Doc. 52), and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 56). The Court has also reviewed the electronic transcripts from the proceedings held on January 24, 2018 (Doc. 50) and from the proceedings held on the Motion to..
More
ORDER
DOUGLAS HARPOOL, District Judge.
Before the Court is the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 22), Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 51), the Government's Response in Opposition to Motion to Suppress the Evidence (Doc. 52), and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 56). The Court has also reviewed the electronic transcripts from the proceedings held on January 24, 2018 (Doc. 50) and from the proceedings held on the Motion to Suppress on April 3, 2018. (Doc. 55). The time for Defendant to timely file exceptions to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge has lapsed.
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. 56). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motions to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 22) and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's' Motion to Suppress Statements. (Doc. 51).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
