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. Parker

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division

January 9, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD LEROY PARKER, Defendant.

          ORDER

          LINDA R. READE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

         TABLE OF CONTENTS

         I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1

         II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ....................... 2

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................... 2

         IV. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................... 3

         V. ANALYSIS .............................................. 4

         A. Factual Objections ................................... 4

         1. “Two hours before” ............................. 4

         2. Sweating ..................................... 5

         3. Truck ....................................... 5

         B. Conclusions of Law .................................. 5

         1. Seizure ...................................... 5

         2. Custody ...................................... 8

         3. Search warrant ................................ 13

         a. Probable cause ........................... 13

         b. Good faith exception ........................ 14

         VI. CONCLUSION .......................................... 17

         I. INTRODUCTION

         The matters before the court are Defendant Richard Leroy Parker's Objections (“Defense Objections”) (docket no. 58), Defendant's Pro Se Objections (“Pro Se Objections”) (docket no. 58-2) and the government's Objections (“Government Objections”) (docket no. 59) to United States Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 47), which recommends that the court grant in part and deny in part Defendant's “Motion to Suppress Evidence” (“Motion”) (docket no. 36).

         II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On August 24, 2017, a grand jury returned an Indictment (docket no. 2) charging Defendant with one count of distribution of a controlled substance near a protected location resulting in death in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C), 851 and 860(a), and two counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance near a protected location in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C), 851 and 860(a). See Indictment at 1-4. On November 13, 2017, Defendant filed the Motion. On November 20, 2017, the government filed a Resistance (docket no. 43). On November 29, 2017, Judge Williams held a hearing on the Motion. See November 29, 2017 Minute Entry (docket no. 45). Defendant appeared in court with his attorney, Melanie Keiper. Assistant United States Attorney Dan Chatham represented the government. On December 6, 2017, Judge Williams issued the Report and Recommendation, which recommends that the court grant in part and deny in part the Motion. On December 20, 2017, Defendant filed the Defense Objections and the Pro Se Objections. On that same date, the government filed the Government Objections. The matter is 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 recommendation 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 ...


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.