United States v. Bell

Greg N. Stivers, Chief Judge United States District Court

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objection (DN 54) to the Magistrate Judge's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation (DN 52) as to Defendant's Motion to Suppress (DN 23). For the reasons that follow, the objection is OVERRULED.

On August 7, 2019, officers with the South Central Kentucky Drug Task Force executed a search warrant at a residence located in Simpson County, Kentucky, which was occupied by Defendant Donavan Bell ("Bell"). Bell was home at the time the warrant was executed and was detained during the search. During the search and prior to being read his Miranda rights, Bell made some statements in the presence of the officers.

In the Superseding Indictment, Bell was charged with distribution of methamphetamine, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. (Superseding Indictment 1-2, DN 39). Bell has moved to suppress evidence discovered during a search due to purported deficiencies with the warrant and its execution, and statements made to law enforcement during the search prior to being read his Miranda rights. (Def.'s Mot. Suppress 2-6, DN 23; Def.'s Suppl. Mot. Suppress 1-3, DN 33).

Following a hearing, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (R&R) recommending that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. (R. & R. 14, DN 52). The Magistrate Judge rejected Bell's challenges to the reliability of the confidential information upon whose information the affidavit was based, the staleness of the information provided by the confidential informant, a purported error in the search location address, and the time of the execution of the search. (R. & R. 5-12). While Bell did not specifically identify any particular incriminating statements, the Magistrate Judge recommended the exclusion of any incriminating statements made by Bell prior to receiving the Miranda warning. (R. & R. 13-14).

When ruling on an objection to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation of disposition on a Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, the Court conducts a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2004).

In its objection, the United States only challenges the Magistrate Judge's recommendation regarding the suppression of statements. (Pl.'s Obj. 1-3, DN 54). The United States has conceded, however, that it does not intend to offer any statements made prior to the Miranda warning that are either inculpatory or exculpatory. (Pl.'s Obj. 2). To the extent that Bell involuntarily made any incriminating statements prior to the Miranda warning, those statements would be suppressed. See United States v. Crowder, 62 F.3d 782, 786 (6th Cir. 1995) ("[U]nwarned statements made during a custodial interrogation are not admissible, regardless of whether the statements were voluntary or whether a constitutional violation occurred." (citing Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 307 (1985))). Any issue as to the admissibility of evidence may be raised in a pretrial motion or during trial.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection (DN 54) is OVERRULED, the Magistrate Judge's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation (DN 52) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and Defendant's Motion to Suppress (DN 23) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

/s/

Greg N. Stivers, Chief Judge

United States District Court

December 2, 2020 cc: counsel of record