USA v. Washington

Filing 66

Order on Motion to Suppress

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
CASSERO LENELL WASHINGTON,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:08-cr-00121JWS
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
[Re:

Motion at docket 36]

I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 36, defendant Washington moved to suppress evidence obtained from
the search of a Chevy Tahoe pursuant to a state search warrant. He argues the
warrant application was fatally defective, because it included insufficient information to
show probable cause to search the vehicle, and so the officer executing the warrant
could not have properly relied upon it. The motion was fully briefed, and Magistrate
Judge Longenbaugh heard oral argument. Thereafter, she filed an initial report and
recommendation at docket 60 recommending that the motion be denied. Washington
filed timely objections at docket 61 to which the government responded at 62. At docket
65, the magistrate judge continues to recommend that the motion be denies.

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

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

report and recommendation in a case such as this one, the district court conducts de
novo review of all conclusions of law,2 and any findings of fact to which objections have
been taken.3 Uncontested findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.4

III. DISCUSSION
This court has applied the standard of review set out above. Having done so,
this court concludes that the recommended findings of fact are in all respects correct.
Furthermore, Judge Longenbaugh’s well reasoned discussion and application of the
pertinent law is correct. For these reasons, this court adopts her recommended findings
of fact and conclusions of law. Based thereon, the motion at docket 36 is DENIED.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 23rd day of July 2009.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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-