Opinion
2:06-cr-19-FtM-29SPC.
April 10, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
On March 21, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #42) to the Court recommending that defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #23) be denied. Defendant's Objections (Doc. #43) were filed on March 29, 2006.
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); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). 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). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. by Ernest 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).
II.
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, and the photographic exhibits submitted by the government, the Court fully agrees with the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the magistrate judge. Under the factual circumstances of this case, at the time Sgt. Ferry entered the house an objectively reasonable officer would have believed a person in the house was in danger. Additionally, given the delay caused by the false statements to the police, it was objectively reasonable for Sgt. Ferry to believe an emergency existed which called for immediate action by entering the residence without further delay. The fact that no additional victim was found does not render the police action any less lawful. United States v. Holloway, 290 F.3d 1331, 1340 (11th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1161 (2003). Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and will deny the Motion to Suppress Evidence.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #42) is accepted and adopted, and is specifically incorporated into this Opinion and Order.
2. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #23) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.