United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Martin May United States District Judge.
case comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) ,
recommending that Defendant's Motions to Suppress [15,
16, 23] be granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
the Government filed Objections to the R&R . After
due consideration, the Court enters the following Order:
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the
Magistrate's Report and Recommendation for clear error if
no objections are filed to the report. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). If a party files objections, however, the district
court must determine de novo any part of the
Magistrate Judge's disposition that is the subject of a
proper objection. Id.; Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). As
the Government filed objections, the Court reviews the
Magistrate Judge's challenged recommendations on a de
novo basis. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court will
consider each objection in turn.
Government objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion
that (1) law enforcement's initial presence at
Defendant's door violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2)
that law enforcement's entry into Defendant's home
was not lawfully authorized by exigent circumstances.
See Dkt. No.  at 1. The Government argues that
law enforcement had reasonable suspicion to believe that
Defendant's fugitive brother, Ryan Jackson, was at
Defendant's residence and ultimately probable cause once
law enforcement smelled marijuana at Defendant's door.
Further, it argues that the initial warrantless entry was
also supported by exigent circumstances once the marijuana
was smelled and Defendant closed the door to law enforcement
as there was a concern that evidence could be destroyed, the
police could be harmed, or that Defendant's brother Ryan
Jackson could have fled.
this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that law
enforcement's conduct revealed an objective purpose to
conduct a search for Ryan, not to conduct a “knock and
talk”; thus, law enforcement never had an implied
license to enter Defendant's property. R&R, Dkt. No.
 at 26-36; see also Florida v. Jardines, 569
U.S. 1, 10 (2013) (“Here, however, the question before
the court is precisely whether the officer's conduct was
an objectively reasonable search. As we have described, that
depends upon whether the officers had an implied license to
enter the porch, which in turn depends upon the purpose for
which they entered. Here, their behavior objectively reveals
a purpose to conduct a search, which is not what anyone would
think he had license to do.”); U.S. v. Maxi,
886 F.3d 1318, 1328 (11th Cir. 2018) (opining that if one
police officer had approached the door “alone, knocked,
and waited briefly to be received, ” that would have
constituted a valid “knock and talk” but because
instead ten law enforcement officers-with four or five at the
door and others taking tactical positions around the
perimeter-plainly intended to enter the residence to secure
the persons inside, as opposed to conducting an informal
interview, those officers did not have an implied license to
enter the property as a “knock and talk”). Law
enforcement's behavior here objectively indicated an
intent to search the house for Defendant's brother, not
to conduct an informal interview. Approximately ten U.S.
Marshals arrived on scene in tactical gear with guns drawn
and surrounded Defendant's home. They then yelled
“Police, come to the door, police, open the door,
police with a warrant, open the door” in order to
convince someone inside to open the door so that they could
search the home for Defendant's brother. This conduct
cannot be objectively viewed as a “knock and
because law enforcement did not smell marijuana until they
were impermissibly on the property, the initial warrantless
entry likewise cannot be supported by exigent circumstances.
See Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 471 (2011)
(holding that the exigent circumstances rule only applies
“when the police do not gain entry to premises by means
of an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth
Amendment.”); see also Maxi, 886 F.3d at 1328
(“Jardines makes clear that if officers had
found evidence in the yard or peered through windows as they
took up positions around the house, that evidence would be
subject to exclusion.”). The Court therefore
ADOPTS the R&R as the Order of the Court
and GRANTS Defendant's Motions [15, 16,
Magistrate Judge's R&R  is
ADOPTED as the Order of this Court and the
Government's Objections are OVERRULED.
Defendant's Motions to Suppress [15, 16, 23] are
trial in this action against Christopher Wayne Jackson is
hereby set to begin on Monday, February 25, 2019 at 9:30 A.M.
in Courtroom 2107. The pretrial conference will be held on
Wednesday, February 20, 2019 at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom 2107.
By noon on Friday, February 8, 2019, the parties are to file
the following: motions in limine and proposed
voir dire questions. By noon on Friday, February 8,
2019, the Government must file a brief summary of the
Indictment that the parties can rely on for voir
dire. By noon on Thursday, February 14, 2019, the
parties are to file responses to motions in limine
and any objections and to those items listed above.
time is allowed through February 25, 2019, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), to give counsel for
Defendant and the Government the reasonable time necessary
for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise
of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice
served outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendant
in a speedy trial and are consistent with both the best
interest of the public and individual justice in this matter.