United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Central Division
LINDA R. READE CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
The matter before the court is Defendant Ismael Tamayo-Baez’s Amended and Substituted Objections (“Objections”) (docket no. 34) to United States Chief Magistrate Judge Jon S. Scoles’s Report and Recommendation (docket no. 23), which recommends that the court deny Defendant’s Motion to Suppress (“Motion”) (docket no. 16).
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 28, 2014, a grand jury returned an Indictment (docket no. 2) charging Defendant with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On December 3, 2014, Defendant filed the Motion. On December 12, 2014, the government filed a Resistance (docket no. 19). On December 17, 2014, Judge Scoles held a hearing (“Hearing”) on the Motion. See December 17, 2014 Minute Entry (docket no. 21). Defendant appeared in court with his attorney, Rockne Cole. Assistant United States Attorney Daniel Tvedt represented the government. On December 24, 2014, Judge Scoles issued his Report and Recommendation, which recommends that the court deny the Motion. On January 22, 2015, Defendant filed his Objections. In the Objections, Defendant requests a hearing. The government has not filed a Resistance. The court finds a hearing is unnecessary. Thus, the Report and Recommendation and the Objections are fully submitted and ready for decision.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party files a timely objection to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a “judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3) (“The district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.”); United States v. Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting that a district judge must “undertake a de novo review of the disputed portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendations”). “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation, receive further evidence, or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). It is reversible error for a district court to fail to engage in a de novo review of a magistrate judge’s report when such review is required. Lothridge, 324 F.3d at 600. Accordingly, the court reviews the disputed portions of the Report and Recommendation de novo.
IV. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On the morning of October 23, 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Agent Kevin Taylor traveled to Defendant’s residence in Hampton, Iowa to arrest Defendant for unlawfully reentering the United States. ICE investigators suspected Defendant had unlawfully reentered the United States after learning through an unrelated investigation that Defendant had been removed from the United States in 2004, yet he had been convicted of domestic abuse assault in 2009, with no record that Defendant had received lawful reentry to the Untied States. Shortly after arriving at Defendant’s home, Agent Taylor saw a male matching Defendant’s description get into a Jeep and drive away.
After Agent Taylor witnessed Defendant pick up a passenger, Agent Taylor initiated a traffic stop by activating the emergency lights and siren on his vehicle. The Jeep promptly pulled over and Agent Taylor walked up to the driver’s side of the vehicle and asked Defendant to identify himself. Defendant identified himself as Ismael Tamayo or Ismael Tamayo-Baez. Defendant then answered Agent Taylor’s questions regarding Defendant’s date of birth, county of birth and country of citizenship. Defendant also admitted that he was in the United States illegally. At that point, Agent Taylor placed Defendant under arrest.
In the Objections, Defendant objects to “several omissions of material fact relating to Agent Taylor‘s inability to identify [Defendant] prior to pulling him over, ” and Judge Scoles’s legal conclusion “that there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify a Terry stop.” Objections at 2 (formatting omitted).
A. Omission of Facts
Defendant argues that Judge Scoles omitted several material facts because Agent “Taylor repeatedly testified that he did not know who was driving the vehicle before he pulled it over.” Brief in Support of the Objections (docket no. 34-1) at 2. ...