U.S. v. Harrison, 18-00103-01-CR-W-GAF. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20180921c77
Visitors: 8
Filed: Sep. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER GARY A. FENNER , District Judge . Now before the Court Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #19). Defendant seeks to suppress all evidence, and testimony related to such evidence, obtained as a result of an unlawful search 1 and seizure of defendant in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. On August 9, 2018 United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays conducted an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motions. On September 6, 2018, Judge Hays issued her Report a
Summary: ORDER GARY A. FENNER , District Judge . Now before the Court Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #19). Defendant seeks to suppress all evidence, and testimony related to such evidence, obtained as a result of an unlawful search 1 and seizure of defendant in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment. On August 9, 2018 United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays conducted an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motions. On September 6, 2018, Judge Hays issued her Report an..
More
ORDER
GARY A. FENNER, District Judge.
Now before the Court Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #19). Defendant seeks to suppress all evidence, and testimony related to such evidence, obtained as a result of an unlawful search1 and seizure of defendant in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment.
On August 9, 2018 United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays conducted an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motions. On September 6, 2018, Judge Hays issued her Report and Recommendation (Doc. #33). Defendant filed his Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #39) on September 20, 2018.
Upon careful and independent review of the pending motion, as well as the applicable law, this Court hereby adopts and incorporates as its own Opinion and Order the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Sarah W. Hays. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #19) is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. At the suppression hearing on August 9, 2018, defense counsel advised that defendant was challenging the stop, rather than the search, of the vehicle. (Tr. At 39).
Source: Leagle
