JOSEPH BATAILLON, District Judge
This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained on May 25, 2004, Filing No. 26; motion to suppress evidence obtained on July 13, 2004, Filing No. 28; and objections, Filing Nos. 44 and 46, to the reports and recommendations of the magistrate, Filing Nos. 40 and 41. The government filed a seven-count Indictment in this case charging the defendant with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of firearms during drug trafficking crimes, possession of firearms by a convicted felon, and with forfeiture. Filing No. 1.
A district court must 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)(B); Branch v. Martin, 886 F.2d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 1989). I have reviewed the record, the transcript of both hearings, and the relevant case law. I conclude that the motions to suppress should be denied and the objections overruled.
This case involves two motions to suppress. The first involves a search that occurred on May 25, 2004. Officer Mark Langan of the Omaha Police received a call from the Bellevue Police advising that they had arrested a Jason Stoops who wanted to provide information about his methamphetamine dealer, Jimmy Howell. Stoops described Howell and his apartment which was located at 4804 Dodge, Apt. 3, and the quantity of his drug deals with Howell. Officer Langan then conducted a controlled purchase by Stoops from Howell. Following completion of the buy, Officer Langan then filed an affidavit and application for a search warrant. The Douglas County district judge issued the search warrant. The search team entered the apartment, and although the search warrant named Apartment 3, the actual search took place in Apartment 4. Officer Langan testified during the suppression hearing that he went through the same door that Stoops used during the controlled buy. However, two doors existed at the top of the landing and Stoops turned into Apartment 4, not Apartment 3. The magistrate upheld the search and the defendant filed his objections.
Defendant objects on the basis of the incorrect description of the apartment in the affidavit and the search warrant. I have carefully reviewed the record, the report and recommendation of the magistrate, and the relevant case law. I find that the defendant's objections should be overruled. The Eighth Circuit has clearly spoken on this issue, where the court found that an inaccurate address, in a situation very much like the case before me, did not invalidate the search. United States v. Clement, 747 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1984). There is no probability here of a mistaken search. I conclude the magistrate is correct in all respects and adopt his report and recommendation as to this search.
The second motion to suppress involves a search conducted by the Omaha Police Department on July 13, 2004. A cooperating witness indicated he could buy methamphetamine from Crystal Bauman. Tri-Corp officers called Officer Langan to tell him that Bauman indicated that certain individuals were going to rob the cooperating witness and take the drug money. The individuals who were going to rob the cooperating witness had previously been arrested at Howell's apartment on May 25, 2004. Officer Langan then set up a buy at the Baymont Inn Hotel. A vehicle arrived in the parking lot carrying Bauman and Luqman Blackman. Officer Langan became suspicious because the two suspects sat in the parking lot for about seven minutes, which would be unusual in a drug sale. Thereafter, a 2004 Yukon drove up and parked next to Bauman's car. Later, the officers determined that defendant Howell was driving the Yukon. Bauman approached the hotel room, and the officers secured and searched her. Then, Officer Langan proceeded to the two parked vehicles. Howell immediately asked Langan to talk with him, but Langan asked both drivers of the vehicle if they would consent to a search. Both agreed, and then Howell said it was not his vehicle. The Yukon contained a gun. Officer Langan advised Howell of his Miranda rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Howell stated he was there to get money owed to him by Blackman for drugs. Howell admitted to knowledge of some of the drugs in the car and to possession of the gun. During the suppression hearing, Officer Langan testified during the execution of previous search warrants both Blackman and Richard Dingman, also arrested at Howell's house in May, were found where guns were involved. The defendant objects to the magistrate's report and recommendation contending that (1) no reasonable suspicion existed to justify the encounter with law enforcement; (2) probable cause was required for the detention; and (3) the court erred in finding the defendant was not illegally detained. Defendant contends that his mere presence did not justify his stop and subsequent arrest. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948).
I agree with the magistrate that the motion to suppress should be denied. When I review the totality of the circumstances, the facts support a finding that the police believed the occupants of the Yukon vehicle were about to be engaged in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 (1968). First, the officers had credible evidence that made them believe that the cooperating witness would be robbed during the drug deal. Second, the occupants of the first vehicle stayed in their car an unusual amount of time. Third, the Yukon approached the other vehicle and the occupants conversed. Fourth, Bauman exited her vehicle, went to the motel room, and was arrested. Fifth, the participants, including Howell, agreed to the search of the Yukon. Sixth, Officer Langan had previous dealings with three of these criminals, all of whom had been involved in searches that had included guns. I conclude that analysis of the magistrate is correct and I shall adopt it in its entirety.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant's motions to suppress, Filing Nos. 26 and 28, are denied;
2. Defendant's objections to the magistrate's reports and recommendations, Filing Nos. 44 and 46, are overruled; and
3. The reports and recommendations of the magistrate, Filing Nos. 40 and 41, are adopted in their entirety.