Opinion
Case No. 3:09-cr-337-J-34TEM.
December 20, 2010
ORDER
This case is before the Court Defendant Ian Haffner's Motion To Suppress Fruits Of Unlawful Search (Virginia) (Doc. 36) and the Government's Response in Opposition (Doc. 42); Defendant Ian Haffner's Motion To Suppress Statements (Doc. 37) and the Government's Response in Opposition (Doc. 43); Defendant's Motion To Suppress Fruits Of Warrantless Seizure And Search (Invalid Consent) (Doc. 38) and the Government's Response in Opposition (Doc. 44); Defendant's Amended Motion To Suppress Fruits Of Warrantess Seizure And Search (Exceeding Scope Of Consent) (Doc. 41) and the Government's Response in Opposition (Doc. 45); Defendant's Motion To Suppress Fruits Of Unlawful Access To School Records (Doc. 60) (collectively Motions to Suppress) and the Government's Response in Opposition (Doc. 65); Defendant Ian Haffner's Post-Hearing Supplemental Memorandum In Support of Motions To Suppress (Docs. 61, 62); the United States' Supplemental Memorandum In Support Of Opposition To Defendant's Motions To Suppress (Doc. 63); and Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum And Reply Regarding Defendant's Motions To Suppress. (Doc. 70). The Motions to Suppress were referred to the Honorable Thomas E. Morris, United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct an evidentiary hearing and recommend an appropriate resolution. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge conducted evidentiary hearings on the Motions to Suppress on June 9, 2010 and July 14, 2010. See Minute Entries (Docs. 52, 69) and Transcripts. (Doc. 56, 74). On August 31, 2010, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 80) (the Report) recommending that the Motions to Suppress be denied. See Doc. 80 at 30. Thereafter, Defendant filed objections to the Report, see Defendant's Objections To Report And Recommendation (Doc. 86) (Objections), and the Government responded. See United States' Response To Defendant's Objections To Report And Recommendation On Defendant's Motions To Suppress (Doc. 87) (Response to Objections). This matter is ripe for review.
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007). Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will overrule the Defendant's Objections, and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Defendant's Objections to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 86) are OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 80) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
3. Defendant Ian Haffner's Motion To Suppress Fruits Of Unlawful Search (Virginia) (Doc. 36) is DENIED.
4. Defendant Ian Haffner's Motion To Suppress Statements (Doc. 37) is DENIED.
5. Defendant's Motion To Suppress Fruits Of Warrantless Seizure And Search (Invalid Consent) (Doc. 38) is DENIED.
6. Defendant's Amended Motion To Suppress Fruits Of Warrantess Seizure And Search (Exceeding Scope Of Consent) (Doc. 41) is DENIED.
7. Defendant's Motion To Suppress Fruits Of Unlawful Access To School Records (Doc. 60) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 20th day of December, 2010.