JOSEPH F. BATAILLON, United States District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the defendant's objection (filing 18) to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (filing 16). In support of his statement of objection, the defendant has submitted a brief. Having reviewed de novo the exhibits offered into evidence at the suppression hearing as well as the transcript containing the report and recommendation, the Court will overrule the defendant's objection and adopt the report and recommendation.
I. Statement of Facts
In his statement of objection, the defendant claims no errors in the magistrate judge's findings of fact. Accordingly, the Court adopts the factual findings contained in the report and recommendation.
II. Standard of Review
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objections are made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. The Court may also receive further evidence or remand the matter to the magistrate with instructions.
III. Discussion
In his brief in support of his objection to the report and recommendation, the defendant claims that the affidavits in support of the search warrants were insufficient on their face and failed to contain sufficient facts to support a finding of probable cause.
The Eighth Circuit has declared that when reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit to support probable cause, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Searcy, 181 F.3d 975, 981 (8th Cir. 1999). The Eighth Circuit has repeatedly held that "`[t]he statements of a reliable confidential informant are themselves sufficient to support probable cause for a search warrant'" and that "`[t]he reliability of a confidential informant can be established if the person has a history of providing law enforcement officials with truthful information.'" United States v. Formaro, 152 F.3d 768, 770 (8th Cir. 1998) ( quoting United States v. Wright, 145 F.3d 972, 974-75 (1998)). Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit has noted that probable cause can be established by the observations and corroborations of trained law enforcement officers as well as by circumstantial evidence. Walden v. Carmack, 156 F.3d 861, 870 (8th Cir. 1998), and United States v. Edmiston, 46 F.3d 786, 789 (8th Cir. 1995).
In his report and recommendation, the magistrate judge concluded that both affidavits set forth sufficient probable cause to warrant the issuance of search warrants. He also concluded that the affidavits contained adequate information for a state court judge to determine that a fair probability existed that contraband or evidence of criminal activity would be found at the address indicated in the warrant and also on the defendant's person. Finally, the magistrate judge determined that the information contained in the affidavits was timely and was provided by credible sources (fling 16 at pp. 19-20).
After carefully reviewing government Exhibits 1 3, the Court finds that defendant's probable cause challenges to the two affidavits for issuance of search warrant are without merit. Both affidavits contain sufficient information provided by reliable confidential informants establishing probable cause for the issuance of the search warrants. In both instances, a law enforcement officer provided a sworn statement that a confidential informant was inside the premises and witnessed the defendant in possession of and/or distributing methamphetamine within, at most, forty-eight hours of signing the sworn statements. Gov't Exhibits 1 3. Both affiant officers attested that the confidential informants had provided law enforcement with reliable and accurate information in the past which had been corroborated through independent sources. Id. Furthermore, both affiant officers attested that the confidential informants involved are familiar with methamphetamine and had made controlled buys under the direction of an affiant officer and that the buys had tested positive in field test for methamphetamine. Id. Finally, the affiant officers attested that neither confidential informant was on parole, probation or work release at the time the affidavits were prepared. Id.
Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the Court concludes that probable cause existed for the issuance of the search warrants and that the magistrate judge correctly recommended denial of Andrysik's motion to suppress. As the Court finds that both search warrants were supported by adequate probable cause, the Court does not adopt the magistrate judge's alternative conclusion that if probable cause were lacking, the Leon good faith exception would apply.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The defendant's objection to the report and recommendation (filing 18) is overruled;
2. The report and recommendation (filing 16) is adopted; and
3. The defendant's motion to suppress (filing 12) is denied.