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. Coach

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

July 12, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ANTONIO COACH and LORENZO SEABERRY, Defendants.

          ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JOHN T. FOWLKES, JR. United States District Judge.

         Before the Court are Antonio Coach's (“Coach”) Motion to Suppress filed on February 27, 2017, and Lorenzo Seaberry's (“Seaberry”) Motion to Suppress filed on March 16, 2017. (ECF Nos. 31 & 40). The United States of America (the “Government”) filed its Responses in Opposition on April 3, 2017. (ECF Nos. 45 & 46). This Court referred the instant motions to a Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (ECF Nos. 35 & 41). The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motions to Suppress on June 6, 2017. (ECF No. 54). Coach and Seaberry both filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (ECF Nos. 56 & 57). Subsequently, the Government filed Responses to Defendants' Objections on June 30, 2017. (ECF Nos. 58 & 59). After a de novo review, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation should be Adopted.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The Court may refer a motion to suppress in a criminal matter to a magistrate judge for the purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing and to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of the motion. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the Court is not required to conduct a de novo evidentiary hearing as part of its de novo review. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980). After reviewing the evidence, the Court is free to accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

         FINDINGS OF FACT

         This Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact in this case. See (ECF No. 54).

         ANALYSIS

         Defendant Coach presents, essentially, five objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation: 1) it is unclear who determined that the vehicle pulled over in Arkansas was registered to Coach at 2349 Curbertson in Bartlett, Tennessee; 2) whether the amount of marijuana was indicative of personal use, and the events prior to March 21 fail to show that detectives knew how long the trash can had been at the curb; 3) Stale information was used to obtain the search warrant; 4) the search warrant lacked sufficient information to establish probable cause; and 5) the Magistrate Judge's finding that he did not make the necessary, substantial preliminary showing for a Franks hearing.

         Defendant Seaberry presents three objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation: 1) his Motion to Suppress should be granted because “Stale” information was used to obtain the search warrant; 2) the search warrant lacked sufficient information to establish probable cause; and 3) the Magistrate Judge's finding that he did not make the necessary, substantial preliminary showing for a Franks hearing. The Court will address these objections below.

         A. Coach's First and Second Objections

         Coach “objects to the first paragraph of section A, page 2 in that it was not clear who determined that the vehicle pulled over in Arkansas was registered to Antonio Coach at 2349 Curbertson in Bartlett, Tennessee.” (ECF No. 57 at 2). The Court finds Coach's first objection as a general objection. While the objection is clearly a factual objection, Coach fails to explain how this objection is of consequence. The Sixth Circuit has emphasized that objections are to be specific in order to narrowly focus the district court's attention on the dispositive and contentious issues. Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148 (1985)) (“The requirement of objections permitted the district court to focus attention on those issues…that are at the heart of the parties dispute…thereby preventing the district court from being ‘sandbagged' by a failure to object.”) Without a specific objection, it is difficult for the Court to determine how the Magistrate Judge's Report and Representation misrepresented the facts of this case or what cause or issue the Plaintiff could find objectionable. The failure to identify specific concerns with a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation allows the party's objection to be deemed a general objection. McCready v. Kamminga, 113 F. App'x 47, 49 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Howard, 932 F.2d at 509).

         Coach also objects to

page 3 in the amount of marijuana was indicative of personal use. Also, section A concerning the events prior to March 21 fails to show that detectives did not know how long the trash had been at the curb. It could have been there over a week. It also fails to state that anyone walking down the street could have had access to the trash can for lengthy periods of time. It further does not state that there was any direct link to the trash can and the home except two pieces of mail. In fact most evidence found linked Seaberry to the home and not Coach.

(ECF No. 57 at 2). Coach's objection to the amount of marijuana being indicative of personal use does not alter the Court's probable cause analysis discussed below. Additionally, the remaining parts of Coach's objection invite undue speculation and ignores the requirement that affidavits must be reviewed in their totality. The objection seems to omit the fact that 194 pounds of marijuana was discovered in a vehicle traveling from Dallas to Memphis, ...


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.