Filed: Aug. 04, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2017
Summary: OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HENRY EDWARD AUTREY , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins. Defendant has filed written objections to Judge Collins' Recommendation. The Government has filed a response to the Objections. Judge Collins recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, [Doc. No. 41], be denied. When a party objects to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court must cond
Summary: OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HENRY EDWARD AUTREY , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins. Defendant has filed written objections to Judge Collins' Recommendation. The Government has filed a response to the Objections. Judge Collins recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, [Doc. No. 41], be denied. When a party objects to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court must condu..
More
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins. Defendant has filed written objections to Judge Collins' Recommendation. The Government has filed a response to the Objections. Judge Collins recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, [Doc. No. 41], be denied.
When a party objects to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report, findings, or recommendations to which the party objected. See United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir.2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court will therefore conduct such a de novo review of those portions of the Memorandum to which Defendant objects. The Court has reviewed the entire record, including the transcript, for this purpose.
Defendant relies on his previously filed Motion to Suppress. He argues that his right to remain silent was violated on March 17, 2015 by Inspectors Blue and Young, and that any statement he made was not voluntary.
Judge Collins correctly found that the Illinois inspectors are not police officers. They told defendant that their questioning was based on administrative policy and that he was free to leave the room at any time. Miranda warnings were therefore not required. United States v. Mshihiri, 816 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Jenkins-Watts, 574 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Garlock, 19 F.3d 441, 442-44 (8th Cir. 1994). Since no warnings were required, whether Defendant's statements were voluntary in accordance with Miranda need not be addressed.
Judge Collins' Report and Recommendation is a thorough analysis of the applicable law. It is well reasoned and well supported. Defendant's objections are overruled, and the Court adopts Judge Collins' Report and Recommendation in toto.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Suppress Statements, [Doc. No. 41], is DENIED.
