From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Strong

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Mar 8, 2010
Criminal No. 09-375(1) (DWF/RLE) (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2010)

Opinion

Criminal No. 09-375(1) (DWF/RLE).

March 8, 2010

Clifford B. Wardlaw, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, counsel for Plaintiff.

Caroline Durham, Assistant Federal Defender, Office of the Federal Defender, counsel for Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Christopher Michael Strong's ("Defendant") objections to Chief Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson's Report and Recommendation dated February 1, 2010, recommending that: (1) the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure be denied; and (2) the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers be denied, as moot.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b). The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and precisely set forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference for purposes of Defendant's objections.

Based upon the de novo review of the record, which included the Court reviewing the Magistrate Judge's finding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant contained probable cause and the Court concluding that the affidavit established probable cause; the Court having reviewed the arguments and submissions of the parties; and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby enters the following:

ORDER

1. Defendant Christopher Michael Strong's objections (Doc. No. [39]) to Chief Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson's Report and Recommendation dated February 1, 2010, are DENIED.

2. Chief Magistrate Judge Raymond L. Erickson's Report and Recommendation dated February 1, 2010 (Doc. No. [30]), is ADOPTED.

3. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure (Doc. No. [22]) is DENIED.

4. The Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers (Doc. No. [23]) is DENIED, AS MOOT.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Strong

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Mar 8, 2010
Criminal No. 09-375(1) (DWF/RLE) (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Strong

Case Details

Full title:United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Christopher Michael Strong…

Court:United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Mar 8, 2010

Citations

Criminal No. 09-375(1) (DWF/RLE) (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2010)