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. Richardson

United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division

March 19, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JERMAINE DAVID RICHARDSON, Defendant.

          ORDER

          SUSAN P. WATTERS U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         Before the Court are Magistrate Judge Timothy Cavan's findings and recommendation on Defendant Jermaine David Richardson's motion to suppress. Judge Cavan recommends the Court deny Richardson's motion.

         I. Procedural history

         On October 31, 2018, the Court referred Defendant Jermaine David Richardson's Motion to Suppress (Doc. 24) to Judge Cavan for purposes of conducting a hearing and issuing findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(a). On December 26, 2018, Judge Cavan issued his findings and recommendation. (Doc. 40). Judge Cavan recommended the Court grant Richardson's motion to suppress, but noted the government may be able to satisfy the independent source exception because it later obtained a search warrant. (Doc. 40 at 20-2 1). Judge Cavan was unable to complete an analysis of the independent source exception because the government failed to introduce the search warrant at the hearing. In its objections to Judge Cavan's findings and recommendation, the government attached the search warrant as an exhibit and requested the matter be referred back to Judge Cavan to conduct the independent source exception analysis with the warrant in hand. (Doc. 44). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court recommitted the matter to Judge Cavan to conduct the independent source exception analysis. (Doc. 47).

         On February 12, 2019, Judge Cavan re-issued his findings and recommendation. (Doc. 50). Judge Cavan recommended the Court deny Richardson's motion to suppress based on the independent source exception. (Doc. 50 at 11).

         II. Standard of review

          The United States and Richardson timely objected to Judge Cavan's findings and recommendation. (Docs. 44 and 51). The parties are entitled to de novo review of those portions of Judge Cavan's findings and recommendation to which they properly object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

         III. Objections

         A. United States' objections

         The United States objects to Judge Cavan's conclusion that neither the exigent circumstances exception nor the protective sweep exception justified the warrantless entry into Richardson's home. The Court agrees with Judge Cavan in full and the United States' objections are overruled.

         B. Richardson's objections

         Richardson objects to Judge Cavan's conclusion that the evidence seized from Richardson's home is admissible under the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule.

         The independent source exception applies if (1) the officers would have sought a search warrant without seeing the tainted evidence and (2) the search warrant application contained probable cause without the tainted evidence. United States v. Washington, 700 Fed.Appx. 619, 621 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Duran-Orozco, 192 F.3d 1277, 1281 (9th Cir. 1999)). Judge Cavan found both prongs of the independent source exception were present.

         Under the first finding, Richardson argues the officers would not have sought a search warrant without seeing the tainted evidence because the officers spoke about obtaining a search warrant for ten or fifteen minutes prior to the warrantless entry, but only obtained a search warrant after the seeing the tainted evidence. Contrary to Richardson's assertion, Sergeant Riley Finnegan explained at the hearing that the purpose of entering the home was to secure it "pending a search warrant application." (Tr. 13:9-25). Sergeant Finnegan further explained he would not have entered the residence to secure it if he had not already decided to get a search warrant because the purpose of securing a residence is to "prevent the destruction of any evidence that possibly could be located ...


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.