U.S. v. Andresen, 1:15-cr-0372-AT. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20160511a54
Visitors: 17
Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: May 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER AMY TOTENBERG , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as to Defendant Louis Andresen's motion to suppress evidence [Doc. 25]. In his motion filed on November 4, 2015, Defendant Andresen seeks to suppress evidence "seized by law enforcement pursuant to a search without a warrant, without a valid exception to the warrant requirement, and in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights" [Doc. 11 at 1]. The Magistrate Judge deter
Summary: ORDER AMY TOTENBERG , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as to Defendant Louis Andresen's motion to suppress evidence [Doc. 25]. In his motion filed on November 4, 2015, Defendant Andresen seeks to suppress evidence "seized by law enforcement pursuant to a search without a warrant, without a valid exception to the warrant requirement, and in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights" [Doc. 11 at 1]. The Magistrate Judge determ..
More
ORDER
AMY TOTENBERG, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as to Defendant Louis Andresen's motion to suppress evidence [Doc. 25]. In his motion filed on November 4, 2015, Defendant Andresen seeks to suppress evidence "seized by law enforcement pursuant to a search without a warrant, without a valid exception to the warrant requirement, and in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights" [Doc. 11 at 1]. The Magistrate Judge determined that the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify the investigative stop at issue. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommends that this Court deny Defendant's motion to suppress evidence.
The Court notes that no objections have been filed in response to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation for clear error and finds none. Accordingly, the Court receives the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation with approval and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of this Court. For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court DENIES Defendant Andresen's motion to suppress evidence [Doc. 11].
It is so ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
