United States v. Morris

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAHEEM MORRIS, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Date published: Dec 21, 2020

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:19-CR-0389-LMM (N.D. Ga. Dec. 21, 2020)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:19-CR-0389-LMM

12-21-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RAHEEM MORRIS, Defendant.

Leigh Martin May United States District Judge

ORDER

This case comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [473]. Defendant Raheem Morris has filed objections to the R&R [481]. After due consideration, the Court enters the following Order:

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation for clear error if no objections are filed to the report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections, however, the district court must determine de novo any part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition that is the subject of a proper objection. Id.; Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). As Defendant filed objections, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's challenged recommendations on a de novo basis. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court will consider each objection in turn.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant Raheem Morris filed a Motion to Suppress evidence seized during a warrantless search of his car. Dkt. No. [162]. The Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing on that Motion, Dkt. No. [316], and the parties filed post-hearing briefs. Dkt. Nos. [345, 351, 427]. The Magistrate Judge then issued an R&R recommending that this Court deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress. Dkt. No. [473].

Defendant Morris filed a blanket objection to the R&R "to preserve [his] objection to the introduction of any evidence gathered from this stop . . . ." Dkt. No. [481] at 2. After carefully reviewing the R&R, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's holding that the arresting officers had probable cause to stop and search Defendant's vehicle. Under the collective knowledge doctrine, the knowledge of the officers coordinating the investigation may be attributed to Deputy Britt. Armed with that knowledge, Deputy Britt had probable cause to stop Defendant and search his car. Accordingly, Defendant's Objection [481] is OVERRULED, and the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R [473] as the holding of this Court.

III. CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge's R&R [473] is ADOPTED as the holding of this Court. Defendant's Objection [481] is OVERRULED, and Defendant's Motion to Suppress [162] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2020.

/s/ _________

Leigh Martin May

United States District Judge