Summary
In United States v. King, No. 3:06CR141, 2007 WL 1830761 (E.D. Tenn. June 22, 2007)(Phillips, J.), the defendant moved to suppress evidence of firearms seized from his house on the grounds that the officers lacked a warrant.
Summary of this case from United States v. HerreraOpinion
No. 3:06-CR-141.
June 22, 2007
ORDER
On May 21, 2007, the Honorable C. Clifford Shirley, United States Magistrate Judge, filed a 29-page Report and Recommendation (R R) [Doc. 21] in which he recommended that defendant's motion to suppress evidence [Doc. 9] be denied. This matter is presently before the Court on defendant's timely objections to the R R [See Doc. 24].
The defendant's objections essentially include argument that the arrest warrant was not valid, that Officer Randy Holt, Jr.'s testimony was not completely credible, that the magistrate judge should have found the testimony of the defendant's wife credible, that a warrantless entry of the defendant's home was unconstitutional, and that there was no basis for seizing the long guns from the gun cabinet.
As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has now undertaken a de novo review of those portions of the R R to which the defendant objects. After doing so, the Court readily concludes that Magistrate Judge Shirley has thoroughly and correctly analyzed the legal issues presented in defendant's motion to suppress. Thus, any further detailed comment by the Court is unnecessary and would be repetitive.
In sum, the Court finds that the officers obtained a valid arrest warrant and that the officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct a protective sweep as they believed the defendant, who had reportedly stabbed and shot his brother, was inside the home. Furthermore, the officers were lawfully in position to see the firearms and the incriminating nature of the firearms was immediately apparent under the circumstances.
Accordingly, defendant's objections [Doc. 24] is hereby OVERRULED in their entirety, whereby the R R is ACCEPTED IN WHOLE. Thus, defendant's motion to suppress evidence [Doc. 9] is hereby DENIED.