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. Goldsmith

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

March 21, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
DEON MARCELL GOLDSMITH, Defendant.

          ORDER

          LINDA R. READER JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

         I. INTRODUCTION

         The matter before the court is Defendant Deon Marcell Goldsmith's Objections (docket no. 139) to United States Chief Magistrate Judge C.J. Williams's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 137), which recommends that the court deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (“Motion”) (docket no. 123).

         II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On July 18, 2017, a grand jury returned an Indictment (docket no. 8) charging Defendant with one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846, and two counts of distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)©. See Indictment at 2-4. On October 24, 2017, Defendant filed the Motion. On October 31, 2017, the government filed the Resistance (docket no. 131). On November 8, 2017, Judge Williams held a hearing (“Hearing”) on the Motion. See November 8, 2017 Minute Entry (docket no. 132). Defendant appeared in court with his attorney, Stephen Swift.[1] Assistant United States Attorneys Emily Nydle and Ravi Narayan represented the government. On November 20, 2017, Judge Williams issued the Report and Recommendation, which recommends that the court deny the Motion. On December 1, 2017, Defendant filed the 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 FACTUAL BACKGROUND[2]

         On October 2, 2015, law enforcement officers from the Waterloo Police Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation arranged, via phone, a controlled purchase of cocaine base from Keylynn Goldsmith, the subject of an ongoing investigation. Officers used a confidential informant (“CI 1”) to arrange the purchase and conduct the transaction. Prior to the sale, officers conducting surveillance on a location owned by Keylynn Goldsmith observed a maroon Oldsmobile Bravada arrive and make a brief stop before departing. Officers followed the vehicle to the parking lot of a nearby CVS, which was where CI 1 had arranged for the controlled buy to take place. CI 1 approached the driver of the Bravada and successfully purchased cocaine base, which CI 1 then delivered to undercover officers.

         Officers continued to surveil the Bravada after it left the CVS parking lot. They observed that the driver was a black male wearing a white T-shirt, and that the passengers were a black male wearing a black T-shirt, a black male wearing a yellow T-shirt and two females. Officers did not know the identities of these individuals. During prior controlled buys with Keylynn Goldsmith, different individuals had frequently made the deliveries. Multiple officers participated in the surveillance of the Bravada, rotating positions to avoid detection, but keeping the vehicle in sight at all times.

         The Bravada proceeded to a nearby bus station, where the two female passengers exited the vehicle. It then made brief stops at two other businesses before arriving at Crossroads Mall in Waterloo, Iowa. Officers observed the three black males exit the Bravada and enter the mall. Shortly thereafter, two undercover officers entered the Crossroads Mall and observed three black males wearing, respectively, a white T-shirt, a black T-shirt and a yellow T-shirt, inside the mall's U.S. Cellular store. The individuals eventually left the store, lingered for a time in a hallway inside the mall and then exited to the parking lot. These three individuals then entered the same maroon Oldsmobile Bravada that had been involved in the controlled buy and drove away from the mall.

         At this point, officers requested that a uniformed officer conduct a traffic stop of the Bravada to identify the three individuals. Officers did not observe a traffic infraction.

         The sole purpose of the stop was to ascertain the identities of the occupants. A uniformed officer stopped the vehicle and identified the occupants as Keywann Goldsmith, Antonio King and Defendant. Officers confirmed that the license plate of this vehicle matched that of the car used during the controlled buy approximately two and a half hours earlier. No other evidence was obtained during the traffic stop.

         On April 19, 2016, using a different confidential informant (“CI 2”), law enforcement arranged, via phone, and executed another controlled buy from Keylynn Goldsmith. CI 2 was personally familiar with Keylynn Goldsmith, having made multiple prior drug purchases from him. After the buy, CI 2 met with officers to turn over the purchased narcotics and be debriefed. Officers asked CI 2 if Keylynn had delivered the drugs himself, and CI 2 told them that he had not. Officers then showed CI 2 a set of six photographs depicting individuals that officers suspected were connected to Keylynn Goldsmith's drug activities. The photo array included Defendant. CI 2 identified Defendant as the person who had delivered the narcotics to CI 2. In later conversations with ...


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.