Filed: Oct. 28, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2019
Summary: OPINION & ORDER ROBERT E. WIER , District Judge . Defendant Fields 1 asks the Court to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle on the night of his April 2019 arrest. DE 21 (Motion); see also DE 32 (Mem. in Support). The Government opposes. DE 25 (Response); see also DE 26 & 27 (Audio Recordings of Dispatch Calls). On referral, Judge Ingram held an evidentiary hearing, see DE 30 (Minute Entry), and, after thorough treatment, recommended denial. See DE 33 (Recommended Disposition).
Summary: OPINION & ORDER ROBERT E. WIER , District Judge . Defendant Fields 1 asks the Court to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle on the night of his April 2019 arrest. DE 21 (Motion); see also DE 32 (Mem. in Support). The Government opposes. DE 25 (Response); see also DE 26 & 27 (Audio Recordings of Dispatch Calls). On referral, Judge Ingram held an evidentiary hearing, see DE 30 (Minute Entry), and, after thorough treatment, recommended denial. See DE 33 (Recommended Disposition). ..
More
OPINION & ORDER
ROBERT E. WIER, District Judge.
Defendant Fields1 asks the Court to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle on the night of his April 2019 arrest. DE 21 (Motion); see also DE 32 (Mem. in Support). The Government opposes. DE 25 (Response); see also DE 26 & 27 (Audio Recordings of Dispatch Calls). On referral, Judge Ingram held an evidentiary hearing, see DE 30 (Minute Entry), and, after thorough treatment, recommended denial. See DE 33 (Recommended Disposition). Judge Ingram expressly informed Defendant of his right to object to the recommendation and to secure de novo review from the undersigned. See id. at 12-13. The established, 14-day objection deadline has passed, and no party has objected.
The Court is not required to "review . . . a magistrate [judge]'s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings." Thomas v. Arn, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981) (holding that a failure to file objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation waives the right to appellate review); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2)-(3) (limiting de novo review duty to "any objection" filed); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (limiting de novo review duty to "those portions" of the recommendation "to which objection is made"). "The law in this Circuit is clear" that a party who fails to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation forfeits the right to appeal its adoption. United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582, 587 (6th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017) ("When a party . . . fails to lodge a specific objection to a particular aspect of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, we consider that issue forfeited on appeal.").
As Judge Ingram aptly noted: Defendant conceded the lawfulness of the subject traffic stop and, thus, Fields's suppression effort comes down to whether the traffic stop was, per Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015), unconstitutionally extended. DE 33 at 1-2. At the hearing, the interdicting officer, Trooper Walker—a 37-year law enforcement veteran (and 30+-year EMT)—provided ample, fact-specific testimony as to his suspicions regarding Fields's intoxication (e.g., the initial tip, the traffic violation, glassy eyes, swaying, elevated pulse, personal knowledge of Defendant's criminal history, contradictory statements relative to passenger). See id. at 3-5. Based on the full record, Judge Ingram concluded:
The stop in this case did not violate Rodriguez because Trooper Walker had reasonable suspicion of criminal drug-related activity prior to the completion of the traffic stop. . . . Unlike Rodriguez, the purpose of addressing the traffic violation was not completed prior to Trooper Walker developing reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Id. at 8. Alternatively, Judge Ingram found that the Leon good-faith exception would apply to foreclose suppression. See id. at 11-12. Again, Judge Ingram's capable analysis and rejection of Fields's Rodriguez challenge stands unopposed.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The Court ADOPTS Judge Ingram's recommendation (DE 33);
2. The Court DENIES DE 21; and
3. Consistent with prior findings (DE 24), the Court SCHEDULES a jury trial in this matter for December 2, 2019, at 9:00 a.m. in London, Kentucky. Counsel shall appear by 8:30 a.m. All unexpired DE 17 deadlines reset relative to this trial date.
