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. Peace

United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division

December 8, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
TERRY EUGENE PEACE.

ORDER

This case is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements [45], on Defendant's Motions to Suppress Evidence Resulting from Execution of Search Warrants [46, 56], [1] on the Non-Final Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnson [66], and on Defendant's Objections to the Non-Final Report and Recommendation [72].

I. Standard of Review for a Report and Recommendation

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) requires that in reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district 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). The Court therefore must conduct a de novo review if a party files "a proper, specific objection" to a factual finding contained in the report and recommendation. Macort v. Prem. Inc.. 208 F.App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Jeffrey S. by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. 896 F.2d 507. 513 (11th Cir. 1990): United States v. Gaddy. 894 F.2d 1307, 1315 (11th Cir. 1990): LoConte v. Dugger. 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988). If no party files a timely objection to a factual finding in the report and recommendation, the Court reviews that finding for clear error. Macort. 208 F.App'x at 784. Legal conclusions, of course, are subject to de novo review even if no party specifically objects. United States v. Keel. 164 F.App'x 958, 961 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. WarrenT 687 F.2d 347, 347 (11th Cir. 1982).

II. Background

A. Procedural Background

On March 12, 2014, a federal grand jury sitting in the Northern District of Georgia returned an indictment against Defendant and two co-defendants, alleging that they participated in a conspiracy to receive and possess destructive devices not registered to them in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, in violation of 18U.S.C. §371 and 26 U.S.C. §§ 5861(d) and 5871. (See generally Indictment (Docket Entry No. 27).)

On April 18, 2014, Defendant filed his Motion to Suppress Statements. (Docket Entry No. 45.) On May 29, 2014, Judge Johnson held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Suppress Statements. (Docket Entry Nos. 58-59.) Defendant and the Government filed post-hearing briefs relating to the Motion to Suppress Statements. (Docket Entry Nos. 62, 64, 65.)

On September 25, 2014, Judge Johnson issued his Non-Final Report and Recommendation. (Docket Entry No. 66.) Judge Johnson recommended that the Court deny the Motion to Suppress Statements. (See generally id.)

Defendant filed Objections to the Non-Final Report and Recommendation. (Docket Entry No. 72.) The time period in which the Government could file a response to Defendant's Objections has expired, and the Court consequently finds that the matter is ripe for resolution.

B. Factual Background

The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Judge Johnson accurately and completely summarized the factual background for the Motion to Suppress Statements. (Non-Final Report & Recommendation (Docket Entry No. 66) at 3-19.) The Court incorporates that portion of the Non-Final Report and Recommendation into this Order as if set forth fully herein. To the extent that Defendant objects to this portion of the Non-Final Report and Recommendation, the Court overrules those Objections. (See generally Objections (Docket Entry No. 72).)

III. Discussion

The Court finds that Judge Johnson correctly set forth the applicable law relating to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). (Non-Final Report and Recommendation at 20-21.) Likewise, the Court concludes that Judge Johnson accurately detailed and discussed the public safety exception established by New York v. Quarles. 467 U.S. 649 (1984). ( Id. at 21-24.) Similarly, Judge Johnson correctly summarized authority from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit relating to the public safety exception. ( Id. at 25-27.) Finally, Judge Johnson properly set forth the law governing suppression of post-warning statements. ( Id. at 27-31.) The Court consequently incorporates those portions of the Non-Final Report and Recommendation into this Order as if ...


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.