Summary
noting that there was no explanation for why an initial Miranda warning was not given
Summary of this case from United States v. TravisOpinion
Criminal File No. 08-254 (MJD/JJK).
February 19, 2009
William J. Otteson, Assistant United States Attorney, Counsel for Plaintiff.
Steven J. Meshbesher, Meshbesher Associates, PA, Counsel for Defendant.
ORDER
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes dated December 19, 2008. [Docket No. 87] Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including all transcripts filed and all exhibits submitted to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated December 19, 2008 [Docket No. 87].
2. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained by Search and Seizure [Docket No. 34] is DENIED.
3. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements [Docket No. 61] is GRANTED.