Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. MARTINEZ, 11-14054-CIV-MARTINEZ-LYNCH. (2012)

Court: District Court, N.D. Florida Number: infdco20120123492 Visitors: 12
Filed: Jan. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2012
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION JOSE E. MARTINEZ, District Judge. THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Frank J. Lynch, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Suppress (D.E. No. 69). The Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the motion and filed a Report and Recommendation (D.E. No. 88), recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress be denied. The Court has reviewed the entire file and record
More

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

JOSE E. MARTINEZ, District Judge.

THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Frank J. Lynch, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Suppress (D.E. No. 69). The Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the motion and filed a Report and Recommendation (D.E. No. 88), recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress be denied. The Court has reviewed the entire file and record and has made a de novo review of the issues that the Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation present. Defendant indicates that the objections were raised before the court at the suppression hearing (D.E. No. 90).

The Report and Recommendation finds that Defendant waived his Miranda rights knowingly and voluntarily. Defendant did not request an attorney at any point subsequent to being advised of his Miranda rights and his statements to authorities were given without any threats, promises, or other acts of intimidation. Additionally, the Defendant was not entitled to a re-advice of his Miranda rights despite having a one and one-half hour interval between his initial advice and the continuation of his interview. Therefore, it is hereby:

ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge Lynch's Report and Recommendation (D.E. No. 88) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Accordingly, it is

ADJUDGED that

1. Defendant's Motion to Suppress (D.E. No. 69) is DENIED.

2. This case remains referred to Magistrate Judge Lynch for all pretrial.

DONE AND ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer