USA v. Axelson, 17-CR-0225 (PJS/HB). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20180130e49
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 29, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 29, 2018
Summary: ORDER PATRICK J. SCHILTZ , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the objection of defendant Paul Axelson to the January 9, 2018 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Judge Bowbeer recommends denying Axelson's motions to suppress. The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court agrees with Judge Bowbeer's analysis and therefore overrules Axelson's objection, adopts t
Summary: ORDER PATRICK J. SCHILTZ , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the objection of defendant Paul Axelson to the January 9, 2018 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Judge Bowbeer recommends denying Axelson's motions to suppress. The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court agrees with Judge Bowbeer's analysis and therefore overrules Axelson's objection, adopts th..
More
ORDER
PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the objection of defendant Paul Axelson to the January 9, 2018 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Judge Bowbeer recommends denying Axelson's motions to suppress. The Court has conducted a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court agrees with Judge Bowbeer's analysis and therefore overrules Axelson's objection, adopts the R&R, and denies Axelson's suppression motions.
Axelson's argument that he was effectively in custody during the June 22, 2016 search of his home is far from frivolous. But the Court agrees with Judge Bowbeer's application of the factors identified in United States v. Griffin, 922 F.2d 1343, 1349 (8th Cir. 1990). When the Court compares the facts of this case to the facts of similar Eighth Circuit cases—such as United States v. Axsom, 289 F.3d 496 (8th Cir. 2002)—the Court is compelled to find that Axelson was not in custody during the search of his home.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES defendant's objection [ECF No. 44] and ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 42]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Defendant's motion to suppress evidence [ECF No. 23] is DENIED.
2. Defendant's motion to suppress statements [ECF No. 24] is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
