Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. White

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

November 10, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERT DAJUAN WHITE, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

JOHN T. FOWLKES, Jr., District Judge.

Before the Court comes Defendant Albert Dajuan White's Motion to Suppress filed on June 26, 2014. (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant's Motion on July 2, 2014. (ECF No. 31). On July 8, 2014, this Court referred the Motion to Suppress to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 34). The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the motion on July 31, 2014, (ECF No. 37), to which Defendant submitted a Supplemental Motion to Suppress, (ECF No. 38). On August 4, 2014, this Court referred this Supplemental Motion to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 40). Plaintiff filed a Response to the Supplemental Motion on August 4, 2014. (ECF No. 41). On September 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report and Recommendation that Defendant's Motion be denied. (ECF No. 46). Defendant filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on October 6, 2014, (ECF No. 47), to which the Plaintiff Replied on October 10, 2014, (ECF No. 48). This Court heard further oral argument by the parties on October 29, 2014. (ECF No. 52).5>

For the following reasons, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be adopted in part and rejected in part, and Defendant's Motion to Suppress DENIED.

I. FACTUAL HISTORY

The Plaintiff filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's proposed facts. Therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact as the factual history. (ECF No. 46 at 2-6).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court has the authority to "designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). "The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

The district court has appellate jurisdiction over any decisions the magistrate judge issues pursuant to such a referral. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The standard of review that is applied by the district court depends on the nature of the matter considered by the magistrate judge. See Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to."); Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed.App'x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003) ("A district court normally applies a clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard of review for nondispositive preliminary measures. A district court must review dispositive motions under the de novo standard." (internal citations omitted)).5>

III. ANALYSIS

A. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge examined whether the Defendant's Motion to Suppress should be granted. (ECF No. 46). The Magistrate Judge's proposed conclusions of law recommended that Defendant's Motion to Suppress be denied. In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge concluded that (1) the Defendant failed to meet his burden under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), to allow the court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the veracity of the supporting affidavit; (2) the affidavit was sufficient to establish probable cause; and (3) the good-faith exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), would apply even without probable cause.

Specifically, the Magistrate Judge's proposed conclusions of law are as follows:

1. Defendant Failed to Meet his Burden for a Franks Hearing[1]

The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Defendant "has not made a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was even made, much less one that was made knowingly or intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth." (ECF No. 46 at 7). For a movant "[t]o obtain a Franks hearing, the movant must provide a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement was made either knowingly or intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth. United States v. Mastromatteo, 538 F.3d 535, 545 (6th Cir. 2008). The false statement must have been "necessary for the magistrate's determination of probable cause." Id. Here, the Defendant offers three statements as false: (1) that the statement "Investigator Brandon Williams initiated a controlled purchase of marijuana with the use of a confidential source from the residence" falsely concludes that the confidential source was "from the residence"; (2) that the statements regarding Investigator Williams's observations falsely create the conclusion that he was physically present to observe the marijuana's exchange; and (3) that the statement "[t]he transaction was captured on an audio and video device" falsely concludes that it captured the image of Defendant. (ECF Nos. 30-1 at 6, 31-1 at 1, 38 at 1-2, 46 at 7-9). First, the Magistrate Judge found that the "from the residence" modifier properly "describes where the controlled purchase of marijuana was to take place, not where the [confidential source] lived." (ECF No. 46 at 8). Second, based on the totality of observations by Investigator Williams, his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.