U.S. v. McQUILLAN, 15-CR-0224 (PJS/SER). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20151231853
Visitors: 5
Filed: Dec. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2015
Summary: ORDER PATRICK J. SCHILTZ , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on defendant Brian Peter McQuillan's objection to the November 23, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau [ECF No. 65]. Judge Rau recommends denying defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence [ECF No. 25], motion to suppress statements [ECF No. 26], motion to suppress evidence based on the search warrant [ECF No. 33], and motion for a Franks hearing [ECF No. 44]. The Court h
Summary: ORDER PATRICK J. SCHILTZ , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on defendant Brian Peter McQuillan's objection to the November 23, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau [ECF No. 65]. Judge Rau recommends denying defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence [ECF No. 25], motion to suppress statements [ECF No. 26], motion to suppress evidence based on the search warrant [ECF No. 33], and motion for a Franks hearing [ECF No. 44]. The Court ha..
More
ORDER
PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on defendant Brian Peter McQuillan's objection to the November 23, 2015 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau [ECF No. 65]. Judge Rau recommends denying defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence [ECF No. 25], motion to suppress statements [ECF No. 26], motion to suppress evidence based on the search warrant [ECF No. 33], and motion for a Franks hearing [ECF No. 44]. The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b). Based on that review, the Court adopts the R&R.
ORDER
Based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES defendant's objection [ECF No. 71] and ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 65]. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence [ECF No. 25] is DENIED.
2. Defendant's motion to suppress statements [ECF No. 26] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence based on the search warrant [ECF No. 33] is DENIED.
4. Defendant's motion for a Franks hearing [ECF No. 44] is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
