U.S. v. DONNELL, 11-365 (MJD/LIB). (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20120320a70
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 19, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2012
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon Defendant's objection to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois February 2, 2012. The Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that his motions to suppress be denied. The Defendant argues that the affidavit supporting the search warrant of his residence was misleading and that the issuing Magistrate Judge lacked probable cause to issue the search
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon Defendant's objection to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois February 2, 2012. The Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that his motions to suppress be denied. The Defendant argues that the affidavit supporting the search warrant of his residence was misleading and that the issuing Magistrate Judge lacked probable cause to issue the search ..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief Judge.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon Defendant's objection to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois February 2, 2012. The Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that his motions to suppress be denied. The Defendant argues that the affidavit supporting the search warrant of his residence was misleading and that the issuing Magistrate Judge lacked probable cause to issue the search warrant because there was insufficient evidence as to the reliability of the CI, and because law enforcement did not witness the purchaser enter the Defendant's residence.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based on that review, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence or Statements Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure [Doc. Nos. 20, 23, 25, and 26] are DENIED.
Source: Leagle
