ORDER

BRIAN K. EPPS, Magistrate Judge.

Pending herein is a motion to suppress challenging multiple items of evidence at the center of the government's case, including for example blood and urine test results, field sobriety tests, and statements made by Defendant to law enforcement officers. The government opposed the motion but now has moved to dismiss all charges with prejudice. (Doc. no. 43.) Defendant consents to dismissal. Doc. no. 44.)

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), the government must obtain leave of court to dismiss an information. When a defendant consents to the dismissal of a prosecution, a motion to dismiss should only be denied in an extraordinary case where the court determines that the reasons driving the prosecutors decisionare "clearly contrary to [the] manifest public interest." United States v. White, 597 F.Supp.2d 1269, 1278 (M.D. Ala. 2009)(citing United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504, 513 (5th Cir. 1975)1). The court should not substitute its judgment for that of the prosecutor. See Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22,28-30 (1977) (per curiam); Cowan, 524 F.2d at 513; United States v. Brayboy, 806 F.Supp. 1576, 1578-79 (S.D. Fla. 1992).

The Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the prosecutor concerning the appropriateness of continuing to pursue this case, and the Court concludes that nothing in the record suggests the prosecutors motivation for dismissal is clearly contrary to the manifest public interest. Therefore, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), the Court GRANTS the government's unopposed motion to dismiss with prejudice. (Doc.no. 44.)

SO ORDERED.