USA v. Kane et al

Filing 247

Order on Motion for Hearing, Order on Motion to Suppress

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?