U.S. v. GARCIA, 15-cr-00028(01) and (02). (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20160104428
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE , District Judge . For the reasons assigned in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein and after a thorough review of the record, including the written objections filed, the Court agrees with the findings of the Magistrate Judge under the applicable law. The Court clarifies a clerical error in the section entitled Law and Analysis, Garcia's Standing, pages 6-8 of the Report and Recommendation, wherein the Magistrate Judge refe
Summary: ORDER ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE , District Judge . For the reasons assigned in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein and after a thorough review of the record, including the written objections filed, the Court agrees with the findings of the Magistrate Judge under the applicable law. The Court clarifies a clerical error in the section entitled Law and Analysis, Garcia's Standing, pages 6-8 of the Report and Recommendation, wherein the Magistrate Judge refer..
More
ORDER
ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE, District Judge.
For the reasons assigned in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge previously filed herein and after a thorough review of the record, including the written objections filed, the Court agrees with the findings of the Magistrate Judge under the applicable law. The Court clarifies a clerical error in the section entitled Law and Analysis, Garcia's Standing, pages 6-8 of the Report and Recommendation, wherein the Magistrate Judge refers to Garcia as the passenger in the vehicle that was subject to the traffic stop. As the Report and Recommendation's factual section correctly recounted, Garcia was the driver, not the passenger, while co-defendant Martinez was the passenger. This transposition of names did not affect the Magistrate's legal analysis or the ultimate conclusion, with which this Court concurs. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motions To Suppress (Docs. 40 and 42) are DENIED.
Source: Leagle
