Opinion
2:08-cr-42-FtM-29SPC.
October 30, 2008
OPINION AND ORDER
On October 16, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #87) to the Court recommending that Defendant Carlos Darius Young's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #60) and Defendant Osner Exantus' Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #64) both be denied. Both defendants filed Objections (Docs. #89, 90) to the Report and Recommendation.
I.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall 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)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
II.
After reviewing the motions, Report and Recommendation, the transcripts of the evidentiary hearings, the video exhibit, and the Objections, the Court fully agrees with the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the magistrate judge. There was no reason to find the testimony of Trooper Heinlein incredible as a matter of law and, for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, every reason to find his testimony credible. The traffic stop for speeding was lawful because the credible evidence established that the vehicle was speeding. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that statements by defendant Young were not obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and that they were not coerced, made under duress, or otherwise involuntary. Under the circumstances of this case, the duration of the traffic stop detention did not exceed constitutional limits. Additionally, the Court further finds that the search of the vehicle's trunk did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Report and Recommendation correctly found probable cause, and under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement a search of a vehicle's trunk is permitted. Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (1999). Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation, overrule the objections, and deny the motions to suppress.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #87) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED, and it is specifically incorporated into this Opinion and Order.
2. Defendant Carlos Darius Young's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #60) is DENIED.
3. Defendant Osner Exantus' Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #64) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida.