Filed: May 21, 2018
Latest Update: May 21, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN , District Judge . In a Report and Recommendation dated April 9, 2018, the Honorable Hildy Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of traffic stops on January 4, 2017, and April 13, 2017, be denied. Defendant objected to the recommendation to deny his motion to suppress with respect to the evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop on January 4. He did not contest the recommendation
Summary: ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN , District Judge . In a Report and Recommendation dated April 9, 2018, the Honorable Hildy Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of traffic stops on January 4, 2017, and April 13, 2017, be denied. Defendant objected to the recommendation to deny his motion to suppress with respect to the evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop on January 4. He did not contest the recommendation t..
More
ORDER
JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge.
In a Report and Recommendation dated April 9, 2018, the Honorable Hildy Bowbeer, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of traffic stops on January 4, 2017, and April 13, 2017, be denied. Defendant objected to the recommendation to deny his motion to suppress with respect to the evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop on January 4. He did not contest the recommendation to deny his motion to suppress with respect to the evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop on April 13.
Defendant argued that the evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop on January 4 should be suppressed because the police did not have probable cause to conduct the traffic stop. The magistrate judge recommended that Defendant's motion to suppress be denied because there was probable cause to effect the traffic stop based on a police officer's observation of a vehicle turning a corner without coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. Defendant objected. According to Defendant, the Report and Recommendation "does not adequately consider the factors that cut against a finding of probable cause, namely the lack of credibility of the officer's testimony, as well as the unreasonable amount of time between the alleged traffic violation, the two separate occasions when police lost sight of the vehicle, and the initiation of the traffic stop." The government responded that Defendant's argument lacked merit:
[B]ecause credibility assessments made by a presiding judge who observed and heard testimony are entitled to great deference and are virtually unassailable on review, and because none of the challenged circumstances are sufficient to overcome the preponderance of the evidence at the motions hearing showing that the defendant failed to stop at the stop sign, the defendant's claims lack legal and factual merit. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (2012). The Court has reviewed the transcript of the hearing before the magistrate judge, as well as Defendant's exhibits.1 Based on its de novo review of the record, the Court overrules Defendant's objections and accepts the recommended disposition.2 The officer credibly testified that the vehicle turned the corner without coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. There was probable cause to stop the vehicle. See United States v. Walker, 840 F.3d 477, 483 (8th Cir. 2016). Neither the short time that elapsed from the observation of the failure to stop at the stop sign to the initiation of the traffic stop nor the momentary loss of sight of the vehicle rendered the probable cause for the traffic stop stale.
Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant's motion to suppress [Docket No. 35] is DENIED.
