U.S. v. Wilkins, 15-00232-01-CR-W-HFS. (2016)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20160505b57
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 04, 2016
Latest Update: May 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER HOWARD F. SACHS , District Judge . Defendant's motion to suppress evidence has been reviewed, together with the briefing and the record of a hearing on the motion. A report and recommendation that the motion to suppress be denied (Doc. 52) has been considered. Defendant's time to object has expired. The magistrate judge's recommendation that the testimony of detective Huff be accepted is supported by the record. Having concluded from the record that detective Huff saw defendant remove
Summary: ORDER HOWARD F. SACHS , District Judge . Defendant's motion to suppress evidence has been reviewed, together with the briefing and the record of a hearing on the motion. A report and recommendation that the motion to suppress be denied (Doc. 52) has been considered. Defendant's time to object has expired. The magistrate judge's recommendation that the testimony of detective Huff be accepted is supported by the record. Having concluded from the record that detective Huff saw defendant remove ..
More
ORDER
HOWARD F. SACHS, District Judge.
Defendant's motion to suppress evidence has been reviewed, together with the briefing and the record of a hearing on the motion. A report and recommendation that the motion to suppress be denied (Doc. 52) has been considered. Defendant's time to object has expired. The magistrate judge's recommendation that the testimony of detective Huff be accepted is supported by the record. Having concluded from the record that detective Huff saw defendant remove a firearm from his person and thrust it into the vehicle in question before closing the door, (Tr. 13-15), and that a portion of the firearm was thereafter visible from outside the car (Tr. 20), I agree with Judge Larsen that the firearm was lawfully seized without a warrant.
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52) is therefore ADOPTED. The motion to suppress (Doc. 39) is DENIED, and the supplemental motion to suppress (Doc. 45) is DENIED as moot.1
FootNotes
1. As noted by defense counsel. (Doc. 45, pg. 2).
Source: Leagle
