United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
May 13, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JEFFREY SCOTT TRUITT, Defendant.
AMY TOTENBERG, District Judge.
Defendant's timely objections [Doc. 35] to Magistrate Judge Janet King's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. 33] are currently before the Court. The R&R recommends the denial of Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 17].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews any portion of the R&R that is the subject of a proper objection on a de novo basis and any non-objected portion on a "clearly erroneous" standard. The Defendant objected on several grounds to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Specifically, he contends that the search warrant and its execution were unlawful because the agent who provided the affidavit in support of the warrant application "included material misrepresentations and omitted material information in his affidavit, in violation of Franks v. Delaware , and because the warrant relied upon stale information and irrelevant information that failed to provide a nexus between the evidence sought and Mr. Truitt's residence." (Defendant's Objections, Doc. 35 at 1.) The Court has therefore reviewed the Motion to Suppress and record in this case on an independent, de novo basis.
After a thorough review of the record, the Court adopts the findings and recommendation set forth in the R&R. The Defendant properly points out a number of discrepancies in the agent's affidavit and the actual evidence made available to the agent. While these discrepancies are of concern, the Court has doubts whether they are significant enough in the context of the agent's overall affidavit and investigation to give rise to an inference of "deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth." Id. at 17. The Court, need not, however, reach this question as the remainder of the information contained in the agent's affidavit provides a sufficiently independent, valid, and substantial basis upon which Magistrate Judge Vineyard could conclude that probable cause supported the issuance of a warrant. The Defendant is therefore not entitled to a Franks hearing. In sum, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge King's thorough evidentiary and legal analysis of the issues presented by the motion to suppress.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R [Doc. 33]. Defendant's objections [Doc. 35] to the R&R are OVERRULED. Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 17] is DENIED.
It is so ORDERED