USA v. Haynes

Filing 58

Order on Motion to Suppress

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
BILLY WAYNE HAYNES,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:06-cr-002 JWS
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
[Re:

Motion at docket 17 ]

I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 15, defendant Billy Wayne Haynes moved to suppress evidence
obtained from four separate searches conducted in Sitka, Alaska. The motion was fully
briefed, and the magistrate judge filed a report at docket 54 in which he recommends
that the motion at docket 15 be denied in its entirety. Haynes filed timely objections at
docket 55, and the United States timely responded with a reply at docket 57.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate.”1 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation in a case such as this one, the district court conducts de

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

novo review of all conclusions of law,2 and any findings of fact to which objections have
been made.3 Uncontested findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.4

III. DISCUSSION
Before deciding the motion to suppress, the magistrate judge conducted an
evidentiary hearing on September 15, 2006. A second evidentiary hearing was held on
October 6, 2006. A transcript of the first hearing was filed at docket 40 and has been
reviewed. No transcript of the second hearing was prepared, but this court has listened
to the recording of that hearing. This court has also reviewed the parties’ papers.
Based upon that review, this court can find no fault with the magistrate judge’s
recommended findings and conclusions. Magistrate Judge Pallenberg correctly found
all the necessary facts and correctly applied the law.
This court writes further to emphasize that the testimony of Marcel Prado at the
second hearing makes clear that the magistrate judge was correct to conclude that the
first search of the trailer was accomplished by consent. The case relied upon by the
defendant, Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 616-17 (1961) does not fit the
facts present here, for Jeremey Beebe was not a tenant occupying the trailer. That a
warrant was sought for the second search reflects both caution by the officer and what
he observed regarding occupancy of the trailer during the initial search. It does not
vitiate the legitimacy of the initial search. Finally, this court notes that Officer Betty Ann
Conklin’s testimony sounded credible to this court as well as to Magistrate Judge
Pallenberg. It supports that aspect of the magistrate judge’s order relating to the
inventory search.

2

Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by
Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996).
3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4

Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992).

-2-

IV. CONCLUSION
For the preceding reasons, this court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions
of law recommended by the magistrate judge. Based thereon, the motion at docket 15
is DENIED.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 24th day of October 2006.

/s/
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-