USA v. Kane et al

Filing 247

Order on Motion for Hearing, Order on Motion to Suppress

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SECURITY AVIATION, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:06-cr-00022 JWS
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
(Re: Motions at 73 and 76)

At docket 73, defendant Security Aviation, Inc. moved to suppress evidence
obtained pursuant to six search warrants. At docket 76, Security requested an
evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware1 with respect to its motion. The
magistrate judge denied that request based on the failure of Security to adequately
support the request and the fact that an evidentiary hearing conducted respecting the
motion at docket 71 had afforded the parties ample opportunity to explore the relevant
facts.2 Reviewing de novo the magistrate judge’s decision that Security failed to make
the showing requisite for an additional evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks, this court
finds that the magistrate judge’s decision is correct. It follows that this court will deny
the request for an additional hearing pursuant to Franks.

1

438 U.S. 152 (1978).

2

The magistrate judge’s recommendations are found in the reports at dockets 178 and
227 discussed further below in this order in connection with the motion at docket 73.

The motion at docket 73 was fully briefed. The magistrate judge filed an initial
report at docket 178, recommending that the motion be denied. Timely objections were
filed by Security, and a response thereto was filed by plaintiff. Magistrate Judge
Roberts filed a final report at docket 227 recommending denial of the motion at
docket 73.
In reviewing the report of the magistrate judge, this court may “accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.”3
In reviewing the recommendations from the magistrate judge, this court conducts de
novo review of all conclusions of law,4 and any findings of fact to which objections have
been made.5 Uncontested findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.6
This court has reviewed the papers relevant to the motion at docket 73 pursuant
to the standard of review above. The magistrate judge has correctly found the facts,
and he has correctly applied the law to the facts. This court adopts his findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
For the reasons set out above, the motions at dockets 73 and 76 are DENIED.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 11th day of May 2006.

/s/
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4

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).
5

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

6

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

-2-