From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Russell

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Oct 20, 2008
CR. NO. 2:08CR121-WHA (WO) (M.D. Ala. Oct. 20, 2008)

Opinion

CR. NO. 2:08CR121-WHA (WO).

October 20, 2008


ORDER


This cause is before the court on the Defendant's Objections to Magistrates Report and Recommendations, filed on October 16, 2008 (Doc. #340).

The facts of this case have been set forth in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #315). On October 3, 2008, the Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the Defendant's Motion and Memorandum to Suppress All Evidence Derived from the Interception of Telephone Communication In his Motion, Russell challenged the wiretaps conducted in this case as being unnecessary under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c).

The Magistrate Judge concluded that the necessity element of the statute was met, and recommended that the Defendant's motion to suppress be denied. The Defendant has objected to the Report and Recommendation, again asserting that the necessity requirement was not met in this case.

The court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the transcript of the evidentiary hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon de novo review of the entire file, the court agrees with the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge and agrees that the necessity requirement was met in this case, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and OVERRULES the Objection. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. #279) is DENIED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Russell

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
Oct 20, 2008
CR. NO. 2:08CR121-WHA (WO) (M.D. Ala. Oct. 20, 2008)
Case details for

U.S. v. Russell

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES R. RUSSELL

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division

Date published: Oct 20, 2008

Citations

CR. NO. 2:08CR121-WHA (WO) (M.D. Ala. Oct. 20, 2008)

Citing Cases

United States v. Degaule

“[T]he purpose of the exclusionary rule is to act as a deterrent to willful conduct that violates individual…

United States v. Acosta

The court disagrees with Defendant and finds that the decision does hold that the good faith exception…