U.S. v. Lloyd, 17-CR-0119-A. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. New York
Number: infdco20180719d64
Visitors: 21
Filed: Jul. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 18, 2018
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER RICHARD J. ARCARA , District Judge . Defendant Henry Lloyd moved to suppress evidence found in a car in which Lloyd was a passenger. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, to whom the Court referred this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), held a suppression hearing and concluded (1) that Officer Francisco Gomez lawfully stopped the car after observing it "commit at least one traffic violation," and (2) that Lloyd does not have Fourth Amendment standing to challeng
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER RICHARD J. ARCARA , District Judge . Defendant Henry Lloyd moved to suppress evidence found in a car in which Lloyd was a passenger. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, to whom the Court referred this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), held a suppression hearing and concluded (1) that Officer Francisco Gomez lawfully stopped the car after observing it "commit at least one traffic violation," and (2) that Lloyd does not have Fourth Amendment standing to challenge..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge.
Defendant Henry Lloyd moved to suppress evidence found in a car in which Lloyd was a passenger. Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, to whom the Court referred this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), held a suppression hearing and concluded (1) that Officer Francisco Gomez lawfully stopped the car after observing it "commit at least one traffic violation," and (2) that Lloyd does not have Fourth Amendment standing to challenge the ensuing search of the car. Docket No. 43 at 8-9. Judge McCarthy therefore recommended that the Court deny Lloyd's motion to suppress.
Lloyd did not object to Judge McCarthy's recommendation. The Court therefore reviews the recommendation for clear error. See, e.g., United States v. Preston, 635 F.Supp.2d 267, 269 (W.D.N.Y. 2009). After reviewing the entire record concerning Lloyd's suppression motion, the Court finds no clear error in Judge McCarthy's recommendation. Lloyd's motion to suppress (Docket No. 10) is therefore denied.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
