Opinion
2:12-cr-114-FtM-99SPC
05-07-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DANIEL CHARLES KIRK
OPINION AND ORDER
On April 1, 2013, United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #44) to the Court recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. #24) be denied. Defendant filed Objections (Doc. #50).
I.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Powell, 628 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2010). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). See also United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990)(quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). A district court may not reject the credibility determinations of a magistrate judge without personally rehearing disputed testimony from the witness. Powell, 628 F.3d at 1256-58.
II.
Defendant's motion sought to suppress his post-arrest statement as involuntary because of intoxication and physical injuries. Defendant now adds tremendous emotional distress and verbal confrontation with the evidence against him as additional bases to find his statement was not truly a free and voluntary statement. After a thorough review, the Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation that defendant's post-arrest statement was made freely and voluntarily after considering the totality of the circumstances. The Court also finds that advising defendant of some of the evidence against him was not coercive, and his statement to the deputy was itself freely and voluntarily made.
The Court rejects defendant's argument that the Report and Recommendation adopted the incorrect standard as to consideration of intoxication in connection with the voluntariness of a statement in a criminal case. The Report and Recommendation cites the proper totality of the circumstances standard (Doc. #44, pp. 9-10) as well as the proper Eleventh Circuit principles specific to intoxication (Doc. #44, p. 13). The Court concludes that the totality of the circumstances, including defendant's consumption of alcohol, physical injuries, emotional distress, and verbal confrontation with some of the evidence against him, demonstrates that defendant's statement was made freely and voluntarily. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the transcript of the evidentiary hearing (Doc. #42), the Court fully agrees with the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the magistrate judge. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and will deny the motion to suppress statements.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #44) is accepted and adopted, and it is specifically incorporated into this Opinion and Order.
2. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statement (Doc. #24) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 7th day of May, 2013.
_______________
JOHN E. STEELE
United States District Judge
Copies:
Counsel of Record
DCCD