Filed: Feb. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 10, 2020
Summary: ORDER LILES C. BURKE , District Judge . Defendant Jamey Eugene Arwood has been indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of Title 21, U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(a). Defendant has filed a Motion to Suppress (Doc. 12), 1 arguing that (1) the search warrant was issued without probable cause because the warrant application was silent on the freshness of the supporting evidence, (2) the affidavit relied on unsubstantia
Summary: ORDER LILES C. BURKE , District Judge . Defendant Jamey Eugene Arwood has been indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of Title 21, U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(a). Defendant has filed a Motion to Suppress (Doc. 12), 1 arguing that (1) the search warrant was issued without probable cause because the warrant application was silent on the freshness of the supporting evidence, (2) the affidavit relied on unsubstantiat..
More
ORDER
LILES C. BURKE, District Judge.
Defendant Jamey Eugene Arwood has been indicted on one count of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of Title 21, U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(a). Defendant has filed a Motion to Suppress (Doc. 12),1 arguing that (1) the search warrant was issued without probable cause because the warrant application was silent on the freshness of the supporting evidence, (2) the affidavit relied on unsubstantiated hearsay, and (3) the statements made by Defendant following the search should be excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. In response, the Government conceded ambiguities in the agent's affidavit but contended that the only common-sense interpretation of the affidavit nevertheless supported a finding of probable cause, and that, even if the affidavit failed to support a probable-cause finding, the search was valid because the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. (Doc. 15 at 7).
On December 10, 2019, U.S. Magistrate Judge Staci G. Cornelius held an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress. (Minute Entry dated December 10, 2019). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), concluding that it was not necessary to decide whether probable cause existed because the government had met its burden of proving that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. (Doc. 18). Defendant has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 19).
When a party objects to a portion of a Magistrate Judge's report or proposed findings or recommendations, the District Court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the report to which the party has specifically objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews the unchallenged portions of the Magistrate Judge's report for clear error. See LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988).
Having reviewed de novo the portions of the report to which Defendant specifically objected and the balance of the report for clear error,2 the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) should be ACCEPTED and ADOPTS it as the findings and opinion of the Court.3
Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. 12) is DENIED, and the objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) are OVERRULED.
DONE and ORDERED.
