U.S. v. Wall, 1:16-CR-145-7-TWT. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20181030a08
Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. , District Judge . This is a criminal RICO action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 1401] of the Magistrate Judge recommending denying the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 1278]. I will not simply repeat the analysis of the Magistrate Judge in the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule obviously applies here. The Defendant has not shown that the warrant was
Summary: ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, JR. , District Judge . This is a criminal RICO action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 1401] of the Magistrate Judge recommending denying the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 1278]. I will not simply repeat the analysis of the Magistrate Judge in the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule obviously applies here. The Defendant has not shown that the warrant was b..
More
ORDER
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR., District Judge.
This is a criminal RICO action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 1401] of the Magistrate Judge recommending denying the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 1278]. I will not simply repeat the analysis of the Magistrate Judge in the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule obviously applies here. The Defendant has not shown that the warrant was based upon an affidavit that was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence to be entirely unreasonable. The warrant was not facially deficient. The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the judgment of the Court. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 1278] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
