Opinion
Criminal No. 00-334(8) ADM/AJB
July 26, 2001.
Eric P. Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, for an on behalf of Plaintiff.
Rick E. Mattox, Esq., Prior Lake, MN, for and on behalf of Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is now before the Court on Defendant Lorenzo Rivera Reyes' Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Objections [Doc. No. 200] and Objections [Doc. No. 201] to Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan's Report and Recommendation ("RR") of May 9, 2001 [Doc. No. 194]. The RR recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions and Answers [Doc. No. 173], and Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure [Doc. No. 174] be denied. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Objections is granted, the Objections are denied, and the RR is adopted in its entirety.
II. BACKGROUND
On November 28, 2000, United States Magistrate Judge Felix Recio in the Southern District of Texas issued a search warrant for Defendant's residence based on an affidavit provided by a Drug Enforcement Agency Task Force officer. The warrant was executed on November 29, 2000. Upon beginning the search, Defendant was advised of its purpose and was provided with a copy of the warrant. He was asked about the presence of any guns, jewelry, or large amounts of currency, and was given a Miranda warning, although advised he was not under arrest. During the search, Defendant was told that he would be indicted and arrested if he refused to cooperate. Shortly thereafter, Defendant and his wife provided information regarding family members and property. Further background information is set forth in the RR.
III. DISCUSSION
In his Objections, Defendant argues that the Court should suppress the evidence obtained through the search of his residence because the search warrant lacked sufficient probable cause. On a motion to suppress evidence, a district court must make an independent, de novo evaluation of those portions of an RR to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); D. Minn. LR 72.1(c)(2); United States v. Quiroz, 57 F. Supp.2d 805, 811 (D.Minn. 1999). Local Rule 72.1(b)(2) requires that any party objecting to the proposed findings of a Magistrate Judge must file a brief within 10 days of being served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different time is prescribed by the Magistrate Judge or United States District Judge. Judge Boylan required in the May 9, 2001 RR that written objections be filed with the Court before May 18, 2001. Defendant's Objections to the RR, dated June 2, 2001, were filed beyond the time period stated for filing objections with the Court. Given the significance of the matter, however, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Objections.
In the RR, Judge Boylan concluded there was sufficient probable cause to support the issuance of a warrant to search Defendant's property. Furthermore, Judge Boylan concluded that the evidence should not be excluded even if the warrant were lacking probable cause because it was obtained and executed by the authorities in objectively reasonable, good faith reliance on the sufficiency of the evidence provided in the affidavit and the validity of the warrant issued. See United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 923 (1984); United States v. LaMorie, 100 F.3d 547, 555 (8th Cir. 1996). Defendant disagrees with this assessment, arguing that this case falls under the following recognized exceptions to good faith reliance by the authorities: (1) that Judge Recio "wholly abandoned his judicial role;" (2) that the affidavit supporting the warrant contained so few indicia of probable cause "as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable;" and (3) that the warrant is so facially deficient that no executing officer could reasonably presume it to be valid. LaMorie, 100 F.3d at 555 (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 923). Defendant's assertions are based on the allegations that the search warrant was issued with "vague" evidence. The evidence, however, provided the judicial officer with sufficient probable cause to authorize the search. The affidavit supporting the application for the warrant indicates that Defendant's wife's cellular phone was specifically involved in facilitating drug trafficking activities by certain members of a conspiracy in Shakopee, Minnesota. Furthermore, the affidavit indicates that authorities were in possession of receipts showing wire transfers of currency from certain members of the conspiracy to Defendant's household. Based on this and other evidence provided, there was sufficient probable cause for the issuance of a warrant.
Defendant also argues that probable cause was negated by the fact that the evidence was "stale" by the time the warrant was issued. See United States v. Steeves, 525 F.2d 33, 37 (8th Cir. 1975). Although a court must consider staleness a factor when reviewing probable cause, the analysis includes a consideration of "the nature of the criminal activity involved and the kind of property subject to search." United States v. Rugh, 968 F.2d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1992). Defendant was under suspicion of conspiracy to launder money — a criminal activity that is typically ongoing and continuous.
The property subject to search here included financial records, electronic equipment, and written documents pertaining to money laundering and/or drug trafficking; such items are likely to remain on the premises for an extended period of time. See United States v. McNeil, 184 F.3d 770, 775 (8th Cir. 1999). The fact that the most recent direct reference to Defendant in the supporting affidavit was more than six months old does not make the probable cause impermissibly stale in this case.
The Court is persuaded that the warrant to search Defendant's premises was obtained and executed in objectively reasonable good faith reliance upon the sufficiency of the evidence provided in the affidavit and the validity of the search warrant. Furthermore, Defendant does not meet the exceptions to good faith reliance that would be required to suppress the evidence.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the RR, and all of the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
(1) Defendant's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Objections [Doc. No. 200] is GRANTED.
(2) Defendant's Objections [Doc. No. 201] to Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan's Report and Recommendation is DENIED.
(3) The RR [Doc. No. 194] is ADOPTED in its entirety.
(4) Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions and Answers [Doc. No. 173] is DENIED.
(5) Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure [Doc. No. 174] is DENIED.