United States of America v. $45,000.00 in United States Currency
ORDER adopting 40 the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation in its entirety; overruling 44 the Claimant's objections to the Findings and Recommendation; and denying 26 the Claimant's motion to suppress. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (JB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
$45,000.00 IN UNITED STATES
CASE NO. 8:11CV14
This matter is before the Court on the objections (Filing No. 44) to the Findings and
Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett filed by the Claimant, Carlos
Martins. Judge Gossett recommended that Martins's motion to suppress evidence seized
as a result of his August 2, 2010, traffic stop be denied.
The facts have been stated by Judge Gossett in his oral findings of fact and
conclusions of law. (Filing No. 43, at 50-53.)
Briefly, Deputy David Wintle of the Douglas County Sheriff's Office, a canine officer,
stopped Martins's vehicle because Deputy Wintle could not read the license plate on the
rear of the vehicle. Specifically, Deputy Wintle was unable to determine which state issued
the plate. The name of the state on the license plate was partially obscured by a rearview
mounted video camera. Once Deputy Wintle was close to the pickup, he was able to guess
the name of the state on the license plate due to factors such as the number of letters. The
stop was completed, and Deputy Wintle deployed his canine, and the dog passively alerted
and then indicated near the rear of the pickup. The pickup was searched, and $45,000 in
United States currency was found.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court must make a de novo determination of
those portions of the findings and recommendation to which the Defendant has objected.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's findings
or recommendations. The Court may also receive further evidence or remand the matter
to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.
The Claimant, Carlos Martins, objects to Judge Gossett's factual finding that the
arresting officer could not read the license plate. Martins also objects to several of Judge
Gossett's legal conclusions.
NECrimR 72.2(a) states that an objecting party “must specify (1) the parts of the
order or findings and recommendations to which the party objects and (2) the legal basis
of the objections.” Martins has not specified the legal basis for any of his objections.
Martins's objection to Judge Gossett's factual finding that Deputy Wintle could not
read the license plate is overruled. Deputy Wintle testified that he could not read the state
on the plate, but he guessed the name of the issuing state.
Because Martins has not provided any legal bases for his objections, the Court
cannot evaluate those objections.
IT IS ORDERED:
The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation (Filing No. 40) is
adopted in its entirety;
The Claimant's objections to the Findings and Recommendation (Filing No.
44) are overruled; and
The Claimant's motion to suppress (Filing No. 26) is denied.
DATED this 14th day of February, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge
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?