Decisions
This section of the Web Site contains opinions selected by individual Judges for posting and is not intended to constitute a complete set of opinions for the district or any Judge. The decisions are organized by categories listed on the lower left portion of this page. If you would like to do a word search of the entire database or individual categories you may do so by clicking on the search button below.


JudgeCan be sorted ascendingCase TypeCase NameDate Filed
Show details for Judge Linda R. ReadeJudge Linda R. Reade
Show details for Judge Mark W. BennettJudge Mark W. Bennett
Hide details for Judge Paul A. ZossJudge Paul A. Zoss
Show details for CivilCivil
Hide details for CriminalCriminal
-USA v. Dodd -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress, Court found defendant's argument that law enforcement lacked probable cause for search warrant to be without merit. Defendant's contention that law enforcement acted unreasonably in relying on second witness' information was without merit.05/15/2012
-USA v. Tran -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress, Court found that exigent circumstances justified police officers' entry into defendant's residence after executing arrest warrant on defendant's boyfriend. Police observed marijuana and weapon in plain view in defendant's vicinity. Furthermore, officers had right to conduct protective sweep before obtaining search warrant.05/15/2012
-USA v. Malcom -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress, Court found that search warrant affidavit contained ample evidence to support conclusion that defendant possessed contraband. Facts recited in affidavit were sufficient to lead prudent person to believe that there was a fair probability that contraband wold be found in the defendant's home or business. The reasonable inference that defendant would have contraband at his residence or business provided nexus between the items sought in the search warrant and the places to be searched. Alternatively, officers could reasonably rely in good faith on the search warrant issued.05/14/2012
-USA v. Gagen -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to suppress, Court found that defendant was not in custody when he made voluntary statements during interview with state parole officer and deputy sheriff, so Miranda warnings were not required. Furthermore, Court found that defendant was not in custody after subsequent traffic stop by deputy sheriff until sheriff arrested and handcuffed defendant for possessing methamphetamine. Miranda warnings by sheriff thus were not required until defendant was under arrest.05/10/2012
-USA v. Murillo-Figueroa -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress, Court found that probable cause did not justify traffic stop based on multiple air fresheners' purported obstruction of driver's view. Court found, however, that probable cause or at least a reasonable suspicion justified stop based on circumstances leading up to stop.04/27/2012
-USA v. Quintero-Felix -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending defendant's motion to suppress be denied, court found that, once officer had probable cause for traffic stop, placing defendant in police cruiser while conducting records check was not unlawful detention. Defendant was not seized after officer completed writing traffic warning, at which point defendant's encounter with police was consensual. Officer also had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify further detention.04/03/2012
-USA v. Jocol-Alfaro and USA v. DeLeon-Ochoa -- Order on detention. Court held risk that defendants might possibly be deported before facing trial on federalc hages was not determinative of their eligibility for pretrial release and that determination had to be made on factors enumerated in 18 USC 3142.10/31/2011
-USA v. Amaya -- Order denying defendant Angel Amaya's motion to strike and/or motion to withdraw, denying as moot defendant Javier Amaya's motion to compel disclosure of identity of source of information, and denying Javier Amaya's motion for a bill of particulars and motion to sever. Report and recommendation recommending denial of Javier Amaya's motion to dismiss Count 2 of the superseding indictment or to strike superfluous language and motion to dismiss Count 1 of the superseding indictment. First, the court did not find that Angel Amaya's counsel's previous representation of government witness created conflict; in any event, government witness and defendant were willing to waive any conflict. Second, the government revealed at the hearing the identity of the source of information; therefore, defendant Javier Amaya's motion to compel disclosure was moot. Third, Javier Amaya's motion for a bill of particulars was not appropriate method to contest sufficiency of the evidence on Count 2. Fourth, Javier Amaya did not show serious prejudice from joinder with co-defendants that would warrant severance. Further, Javier Amaya's motiosn to dismiss Count 2 because of vague or superfluous language and to dismiss Count 1 because of "inextricable entanglement" with Count 2 so as to confuse the jury were without merit and should be denied. 10/03/2011
-USA v. Lindgren -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress statements. In recommending defendant's motion to suppress be denied, court found that, under Eighth Circuit jurisprudence, defendannt was not in custody at the time he made his statements. Failure to give defendant Miranda warnings thus did not require suppression of his statements.08/25/2011
-USA v. Amaya -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized (1) pursuant to a search warrant of his residence; (2) during a consent search of his parents' trailer; and (3) during a search of his vehicle. The affidavit submitted contained information from a cooperating source that was corroborated by officers' search of defendant's trash at his residence and by evidence seized at a traffic stop of the defendant's vehicle. The defendant offered no evidence under Franks v. Delaware that the affiant intentionally or recklessly omitted from the affidavit information that would have been clearly critical to a finding of probable cause. The defendant did not have standing to challenge the search of his parents' trailer; in any event, the search of the trailer did not follow from anything seized pursuant to the search warrant. Court recommended denying suppression of items seized from the defendant's vehicle at the time of his arrest because the defendant failed to state any grounds to support suppression and because no evidence seized from the vehicle would be offered at trial. 08/25/2011
-USA v. Lara-Pantoja -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motions to suppress his post-Miranda statementand his stop, search, and detention, and on defendant's motion to suppress his statements, finding that some of defendant's post-Miranda statements were made involuntarily. Court recommended denying defendant's motions to suppress his stop, search, and detention because probable cause existed for the police officer's stop of defendant's vehicle and because the inventory search of defendant's vehicle after his arrest complied with the police department's impoundment and inventory policy. Court recommended denying defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment.08/02/2011
-USA v. Kristen McCoy and Todd Reynolds -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion to suppress evidence. In recommending defendants' motion to suppress be denied, court found that the search warrant to search defendants' residence was supported by probable cause based on items seized during a traffic stop. Defendants did not demonstrate that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was false or that the magistrate who issued the warrant did not have authority to issue a warrant for a search of property in another county.04/21/2011
-USA v. Corona-Torres - Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence found during a search of defendant's vehicle at a traffic stop. In recommending defendant's motion to suppress be granted, court found officers had neither probable cause to believe that defendant had unlawfully stopped on a highway nor reasonable suspicion that defendant had unlawfully thrown trash on a highway that justified the stop of the vehicle. Although defendant consented to the vehicle search, his consent did not purge the taint of the illegal stop.04/20/2011
-USA v. Charles -- Order denying defendant's motion to sever. Court found defendant had failed to show he would be sufficiently prejudiced by trial with co-defendants in this drug conspiracy case.12/21/2010
-USA v. Martinez-Rodriguez. Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Defendant, who was visibly impaired by alcohol or other drugs at time of questioning, failed to show his will was overborne, and court found his waiver of Miranda rights was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent11/01/2010
-United States of America v. McManaman -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending defendant's motion to suppress be denied, court found probable cause existed for issuance of a search warrant for guns, drugs, and related items, and evidence of child pornography inevitably would have been discovered during any search pursuant to the warrant.09/14/2010
-USA v. Hulstein -- Order granting defendant's motion to take trial deposition by telephone.06/03/2010
-USA v. Villanueva-Martinez -- Order on detention. Court held risk that defendant might possibly be deported prior to facing trial on federal charges was not determinative of his eligibility for pretrial release, and determination had to be made based on factors enumerated in 18 USC 3142.04/22/2010
-USA v. Moes -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment charging him with failure to register as a sex offender. Court found the case turned on a factual issue that must be decided by the jury at trial; i.e., whether the defendant "resided" in Iowa.04/14/2010
-USA v. Peter Hanson -- Order denying defendant's motion for severance. Court found Bruton issue to be moot, and found defendant had failed to show prejudice from joint trial with co-defendants.04/12/2010
-United States v. Riesselman -- Amended Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress drugs and cell phone found on his person during a pat-down search, evidence seized during execution of a search warrant, and statements he gave to officers at the scene. Government agreed pat-down search exceeded permissible scope under the circumstances, and court recommended drugs and cell phone be suppressed. On other issues, court found defendant never invoked his right to counsel; failure to give defendant complete copy of search warrant, including attachment that described items to be searched, was not deliberate and did not require suppression of evidence where defendant failed to show prejudice; although defendant's statements regarding illegally-seized drugs and cell phone were fruit of the illegal search, statements were sufficiently attenuated to purge the taint; and defendant's other statements were voluntary and did not flow from illegal seizure of items from defendant's person.03/31/2010
-USA v. Ruben Olivares-Rodriguez -- Report and recommendation on motion to suppress evidence arising from search of vehicle by a certified drug detection dog. Court found dog was reliable, and his handler reasonably believed the dog had indicated on the vehicle, providing probable cause to search the vehicle's interior. Court further found testimony of defense witness Steven Nicely was entitled to no weight.03/22/2010
-Redd v. McKinney -- Report and Recommendation on petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC Section 2254. Court found petitioner failed to show Iowa court's decisions were unreasonable in finding his trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective for failing to lodge proper objections to admission of certain evidence at trial. 03/16/2010
-USA v. Riesselman -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress drugs found in his pocket during a pat-down search, evidence seized during execution of a search warrant, and a statement he gave to officers at the scene. Government agreed pat-down search exceeded permissible scope under the circumstances, and court recommended drugs be suppressed. On other issues, court found defendant never invoked his right to counsel; failure to give defendant complete copy of search warrant, including attachment that described items to be searched, was not deliberate and did not require suppression of evidence where defendant failed to show prejudice; and defendant's statement was voluntary and did not flow from illegal seizure of drugs from defendant's pocket. 03/16/2010
-USA v. Harrington -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found officers' encounter with defendant was completely consensual; officers did not initiate a "stop" of defendant; and defendant was coherent and able to consent to be interviewed.02/16/2010
-USA v. Hanson -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during search of vehicle at site of traffic stop. Court found officer's continued detention of defendant after conclusion of traffic stop for further investigation of suspected drugs in vehicle was based on officer's reasonable suspicision and did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.02/01/2010
-USA v. Rojas - Report and Recommendation that defendant's motion to dismiss indictment for insufficiency of evidence before the grand jury be denied.12/02/2009
-USA v. Stephens -- Order denying Government's motion to amend conditions of pretrial release to include electronic monitoring and curfew. Court found unconstitutional the Adam Walsh Act amendments to the Bail Reform Act requiring mandatory imposition of curfew and electronic monitoring without an individual determination of whether the facts of the case required those conditions of pretrial release.10/27/2009
-USA v. Graham -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during execution of a search warrant at his residence. Court found there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant and sufficient indicia of validity for the executing officers to rely on the warrant, and the warrant adequately described the places to be searched.09/28/2009
-USA v. Martinez-Pena -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress drug evidence found in his vehicle. Defendant was stopped for speeding. He was cited for driving without a license, and vehicle was seized to install a tracking device pursuant to a warrant. While installing the device, officers found drugs in the vehicle. Court found drugs were not in plain view, and warrantless seach of vehicle violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. However, court further found drugs inevitably would have been discovered during inventory search of vehicle and need not be suppressed. 09/23/2009
-USA v. Yockey -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence located on, and stemming from, the discovery of child pornography on his cell phone at the time he was booked into the jail for driving while suspended. Court found discovery of pornographic image by inentorying officer was inadvertent; arresting officer's examination of additional photographs on the phone and questioning of defendant before giving Miranda warnings was unlawful; and detective's questioning of defendant after Miranda warnings and examination of phone's contents with defendant's consent would have occurred solely on the basis of the single photo inadvertently accessed by inventorying officer and therefore need not be suppressed. 08/03/2009
-USA v. Mosley -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress statements made when officers arrived to execute a search warrant at his house. Court found that under Eighth Circuit jurisprudence, defendant was not "in custody" at the time he made his statements, and therefore failure to give him Miranda warnings did not require suppression of his statements.07/27/2009
-USA v. Haltiwanger -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's objection to Government's 851 notice. Interpreting Kansas sentencing guideline scheme applicable to drug tax stamp violation, court found maximum term to which defendant could have been sentenced was seven months, rather than the thirteen months applicable to defendants in higher criminal history categories, and therefore defendant's conviction under the Kansas drug tax stamp law did not qualify as a prior felony confiction for purposes of a federal sentence enhancement.02/11/2009
-USA v. Gregg -- Report and Recommendation on petition to revoke the defendant's term of supervised release.02/04/2009
-USA v. Maul -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found officer had probable cause to conduct traffic stop, reasonable suspicion to detain vehicle's occupants for further investigation after traffic stop was concluded, and authority to remove occupants from vehicle for purposes of exterior K-9 sniff of the vehicle.10/30/2008
-USA v. Thies -- Report and Recommendation, recommending defendant's motion to suppress evidence be denied. Defendant's girlfriend, with whom he lived, called police to report that defendant was drunk and acting violently, and she was frightened because he had a gun in the house. Officer went to the house to investigate, with intent to seize the firearm for the parties' and the public's safety. He encountered defendant and some friends in the front yard of the residence. He asked defendant a few questions before arresting defendant on an outstanding warrant. He then entered the house, over defendant's objections, to secure the firearm, and while inside, noticed some live ammunition. After learning defendant had a prior felony conviction, officer secured a search warrant for the house and seized the ammunition and other evidence. Court found defendant's responses to initial questions were noncustodial and need not be suppressed; officer's initial entry into the house to retrieve the gun was lawful; and even if initial entry into the house was not lawful, gun and ammunition inevitably would have been discovered.10/23/2008
-USA v. Huntley -- Report and Recommendation on motion to dismiss indictment. Court found defendant who receives firearm in trade for drugs does not possess the firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 USC 924(c), but recommended the motion be denied as premature.10/21/2008
-USA v. Huntley -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant was convicted by a jury of a firearms violation and appealed. Appellate court reversed due to erroneous jury instruction. On remand, government dismissed, and then re-indicted defendant one day later. Defendant argued reprosecution violated his fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy. Court recommended motion be denied based on Supreme Court precedent holding Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar reprosecution of a defendant whose conviction is overturned on appeal due to a trial error, rather than for insufficiency of evidence.09/02/2008
-USA v. Godfrey -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress statements defendant made to agents who questioned him at his home. Court found defenadnt's sixth amendment right to counsel had not attached where defendant had not been charged or arrested and was not in custody at time of interview. Defendant was not entitled to Miranda warnings prior to the non-custodial interview, and defendant's statements were not coerced.08/11/2008
-USA v. Stangeland -- Supplemental Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice for speedy trial violation. Court reviewed dismissal of prior case pursuant to the factors set forth in 18 USC 3162, and concluded dismissal without prejudice was proper. Defendant failed to show constitutional violation under Barker v. Wingo factors. 07/29/2008
-USA v. Puok -- Order on Government's motion to compel defense to produce summaries of expert testimony. Court overruled defendant's interpretation of standard Stipulated Discovery Order, holding production of expert witness summaries is required by the stipulation without any notice or request from either party.07/25/2008
-USA v. Kenison -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Court found defendant had failed to make a preliminary showing that information was omitted from search warrant application recklessly, deliberately, or intentionally, and therefore defendant was not entitled to a Franks hearing.07/21/2008
-USA v. Ortega-Morgado --Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss for speedy trial violation. Parties agreed the indictment should be dismissed, but disagreed on whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice. After weighing factors in 18 USC 3162(a)(1), court recommended dismissal be with prejudice.07/18/2008
-USA v. Stangeland -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant was indicted, but no trial was scheduled. Court dismissed indictment sua sponte for speedy trial violation, and Government then obtained a new indictment. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that because the first indictment was dismissed other than on his own motion, the speedy trial clock continued to run. Court found Defendant was beneficiary of the sua sponte dismissal, and the speedy trial clock began to run anew with the second indictment.06/11/2008
-USA v. McManaman -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found a Sixth Amendment violation where officers asked defendant a question after he had been indicted and taken into custody but before he had been advised of his rights, and recommended suppression of defendant's response to the question. However, court found firearm located as a result of that response inevitably would have been discovered, and therefore it need not be suppressed, nor did the constitutional violation require suppression of defendant's post-Miranda statements made several hours after his arrest.06/09/2008
-US v. Fundermann -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during and as a result of traffic stop. Court found traffic stop was valid; search of vehicle was supported by probable cause; and subsequent search warrant issued on basis of evidence found during traffic stop also was supported by probable cause.05/08/2008
-USA v. Douglas Johnson --Report and Recommendation on defendant's motions to suppress evidence seized from execution of two separate search warrants. Court found the first warrant application to be deficient, and so much so that the court held the Leon exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence seized in execution of the warrant. Court found the second warrant contained sufficient information to support the magistrate's probable cause determination, and further found that in any event, the officers' reliance on the warrant was reasoanble and in good faith.04/01/2008
-USA v. Vo -- Order denying motion to sever. Defendant charged with conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana and money laundering moved for severance from co-defendants charged with continuing criminal enterprise and other crimes. Court found joinder was proper, and defendant failed to show he would suffer serious prejudice from joinder of his case for trial with his co-defendants.03/10/2008
-USA v. Ingram -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found officer's pre-Miranda question at scene of traffic stop regarding whether defendant had anything in his possession that would get him into trouble was not a custodial inquiry and did not violate defendant's Miranda rights. Court further found search warrant was supported by probable cause.11/28/2007
-USA v. Webb - Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment charging him with possession of a firearm after previously being convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." Court found question was for the jury as to whether defendant's conduct leading to the state conviction involved the requisite "physical force" to constitute a predicate offense for a conviction under 18 USC 922(g)(9).11/09/2007
-USA v. Howell -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment charging violations of Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, 42 USC 16901 et seq. and 18 USC 2250. Held: (1) SORNA was not applicable to sex offender with pre-SORNA convition until issuance of Attorney General's interim rule on 2/28/07; (2) application of SORNA to conduct predating the interim rule would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution; (3) SORNA does not violate the non-delegation doctrine or the Commerce Clause; (4) application of SORNA to defendant would not violate due process; and (5) proper venue for SORNA violation is fact-based and represents jury question for trial. 11/08/2007
-USA v. Plum -- Order granting motion for involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs to render defendant competent for trial. Court found the Government had proved all four of the Sell factors.08/29/2007
-USA v. McMullin -- Report and Recommendation on motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay, and motion to dismiss one count of indictment for violating defendant's right against double jeopardy. Court found defendant failed to show delay in filing indictment resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to presentation of his defense, or that government intentionally delayed the indictment to gain tactical advantage or to harass him. On second motion, court held 21 USC 841(c)(2) is a lesser included offense of 21 USC 841(c)(1), so that although trying defendant on both charges does not violate double jeopardy, defendant could not be convicted and punished for both offenses. 08/28/2007
-USA v. McMullin - Order denying defendant's motion for severance. Court found defendant filed to show he would suffer "real prejudice" from joint trial.08/28/2007
-USA v. Sheridan -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. In recommending denial of motion, court found defendant's nephew, who was working as a security guard at resort, entered defendant's room as a private citizen on his own behalf; and not on behalf of, or with knowledge of and acquiescence by, any government agency.08/15/2007
-USA v. Gocha -- Supplemental Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found probable cause existed for issuance of second and third warrants to search defendant's computers, digital cameras, personal data device, and storage media. Court further found search warrants met particularity requirement and were not overly broad. 08/10/2007
-USA v. Jeff Cheney -- Report and Recommendation on defendnat's objections to plaintiff's notice of intent to seek enhanced penalties pursuant to 21 USC 851.07/27/2007
-USA v. Gocha -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence from search of residence and shop building. Court found unrelated attachment to search warrant was included inadvertently and was not considered by magistrate in issuing warrant; defendant failed to make requisite showing to warrant a Franks hearing; and officers reasonably believed cohabitant of property had authority to consent to search of entire property. 07/03/2007
-USA v. Quiroga -- Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Court found officers had probable cause for defendant's warrantless arrest, and recommended evidence from search incident to arrest not be suppressed.06/13/2007
-USA v. O'Connor- Report and Recommendation that defendant's motion to suppress be denied. Defendant argued search warrant for his residence was not supported by probable cause because the facts indicated his alleged activities only occurred at his workplace, not at his residence. Court found issuing judge was entitled to rely on officer's experienced opinion that defendant likely maintained pornographic images and performed illegal acts at his residence.06/11/2007
-USA v. Charles Scott -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found defendant had not made adequate showing for a Franks hearing, and even if affidavit in support of search warrant was deficient, officers executed the warrant in good faith and evidence should not be excluded pursuant to Leon.05/08/2007
-United States of America v. Arias-Gonzales -- Report and sua sponte recommendation that case be dismissed for speedy trial violation.05/02/2007
-USA v. Marsh -- Order on motion for extension of time to complete psychological evaluation. Discusses date when time commences for completion of evaluation.03/29/2007
-USA v. Cobb -- Report and Recommendation that defendant's motion to suppress evidence resulting from search of his residence be granted. Court found officers recklessly included false information in warrant affidavit, and when false information was excluded, information in the affidavit would not support a finding of probable cause for a search of defendant's residence. Court further found inevitable discovery exception inapplicable on these facts.03/27/2007
-USA v. Eddie Lee -- Order denying defendant's motion to sever his trial from the trial of his codefendants in case involving conspiracy to manufacture nd distribute crack cocaine.03/13/2007
-USA v. Enrique Aragon-Hernandez -- Order denying defendant's motion for bill of particulars.02/27/2007
-USA v. Huntley -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss two counts of indictment. Defendant argued his plea in state court to simple assault under Iowa Code 708.1(1) and 708.2(4) did not satisfy predicate requirements for federal charges of possessing firearm after misdemeanor conviction of domestic violence. In recommending defendant's motion to dismiss be denied, Court found State court judgment established, on its face, the required predicate element of the charges.02/20/2007
-USA v. Bauer -- Report and recommendation that defendant's motion to suppress evidence from traffic stop be denied. Court found defendant consented to search of his vehicle, his consent was not coerced by officers, and "plain view" doctrine was irrelevant to the analysis.01/22/2007
-USA v. Bucio-Sanchez -- Report and recommendation that motion to suppress evidence be denied. Court found inevitable discovery doctrine justified admission of call made to defendant's c ell phone; protective sweep of trailer was justified under the circumstances, and evidence observed in plain view during protective sweep was admissible; and roommate had authority to consent to search of all of trailer except defendant's bedroom.01/03/2007
-USA v. Tolbert - Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Court found evidence was sezied lawfully at scene of traffic stop and need not be suppressed; defendant's pre-Miranda statements were custodial in nature and should be suppressed; and defendant later waived rights and gave statements voluntarily and intelligently, so post-Miranda statements need not be suppressed. 12/04/2006
-USA v. Huang and Long -- Report and recommendation on motion to suppress physical evidence. Court found probable cause existed to support issuance of four warrants challenged by defendants, and recommended motion to suppress be denied.10/31/2006
-USA v. Donisi - Report and recommendation that motion to suppress evidence be denied. Court found affidavit in support of search warrant application contained facts sufficient to provide probable cause for issuance of warrant.10/27/2006
-USA v. Becker -- Report and recommendation that motions to suppress evidence and statements be denied. Court found defendant's state probation officer had reasonable suspicion to search defendant's house pursuant to probation agreement when defendant associated with known drug user who had recent arrests, defendant tested positive for drug use, and defendant failed to obtain drug treatment as directed. 10/18/2006
-USA v. Hoffman -- Report and recommendation that motion to suppress evidence be denied. Court found officers were justified in conducting investigatory stop of defendant, and had probable cause to arrest him after he fled scene of suspected drug activity and failed to comply with officers' orders that he stop and remove his hand from his pants pocket.10/17/2006
-USA v. Nieman -- Report and recommendation on motion to dismiss and motion to suppress. Court found informant's use of drugs with defendant did not constitute outrageous governmental conduct warranting either dismissal of case or suppression of evidence. Court further found probable cause supported issuance of search warrant, and warrant described items to be seized with sufficient particularity.10/05/2006
-USA v. Maldonado-Gutierrez - Report and recommendation on defendants' joint motion to suppress evidence located during search of vehicle incident to traffic stop. In recommending denial of motion, court found officers had probable cause to stop vehicle; to detain occupants beyond scope of initial traffic stop; and to conduct warrantless search of vehicle's interior after drug dog indicated on headlight area of vehicle. 08/22/2006
-United States of America v. Sergio Elizarraras-Sepulveda -- Report and recommendation on motion to dismiss one count of two-count indictment. Court found two counts, both involving possession of the same firearm and ammunition, were multiplicitous, and recommended Government be ordered to elect between counts, or to supersede and include both theories in a single count.08/09/2006
-USA v. Kling -- Report and recommendation on three motions to suppress evidence in case involving charges of inducing a minor to engage in sexually-explicit conduct for purposes of producing photos and videos. In recommending that all three motions be denied, court found defendant's Miranda rights were not violated; officers' failure to provide copy of search warrant prior to initiating search did not warrant suppression; information provided by Internet Service Providers provided probable cause for search of defendant's computer and his residence; and probative value of explicit photos and videos outweighed prejudicial effect.07/12/2006
-USA v. Mathison -- Order denying applications for return of seized property. Court found proper procedures were followed in administrative forfeiture proceedings, and court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of those proceedings in the context of this criminal action.06/13/2006
-USA v. Haberek -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to strike the statutory presumption from 18 USC 228(b), as an unconstitutional violation of his Due Process rights. Court found authorities cited by defendant to be persuasive, and in absence of any resistance by the Government, recommended motion be granted. 06/07/2006
-USA v. Avise -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Officer stopped vehicle registered to individual whose license was barred. Defendant had recently purchased vehicle and had no registration. Defendant's behavior led officers to believe he was under influence of alcohol or drugs. Officers arrested defendant to perform sobriety testing at police station. Defendant's car and jacket were searched incident to arrest, and drugs and other evidence were found. Search warrant executed at defendant's residence yielded further incriminating evidence. Court found officers had reasonable suspicion defendant was engaged in criminal activity justifying his warrantless arrest; search of vehicle and jacket incident to arrest was proper; and warrant was based on probable cause. 04/18/2006
Show details for --USA v. McCall -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss Count 2 of Indictment as multiplicitous. Defendant was charged in two counts of illegally possessing ammunition, in violation of two separate subsections of 18 USC 922(g), and argued the single incident of possession should be charged in only a single count pursuant to United States v. Richardson, 439 F.3d 421 (8th Cir. 2006). Court agreed, and recommended Government be ordered either to elect between the two counts, or to supersede and include both theories or prosecution in a single count. 04/11/2006
-United States of America v. Turner -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to sever two counts of Superseding Indictment for trial. Count 1 charged defendant with discrete act of attempting to manufacture methamphetamine. Count 2 charged defendant with perjury in another individual's trial that occurred more than four months prior to act alleged in Count 1. Court found the two offenses did not meet any of the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 8(a), and recommended counts be severed for trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 14(a).02/21/2006
-United States of America v. Yerkes -- Report and recommendation on motions to suppress evidence. Court found officer's approaching defendant to talk to her in parking lot was lawful; defendant consented to search of her vehicle; and evidence seized from defendant's vehicle, and from search of apartment pursuant to warrant, should not be suppressed. Court further found defendant had invoked her right to remain silent and requested an attorney, and officers' re-initiation of contact to interview defendant violated her Fifth Amendment rights; thus her statements to officers during post-arrest interview should be suppressed.02/07/2006
-USA v. Williamson -- Order on motion to continue competency hearing. Court discusses interplay between statutes authorizing competency evaluations of criminal defendants in the federal system, and the Speedy Trial Act.01/18/2006
-United States v. Easley -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence from two separate searches. First search took place at Omaha, Nebraska, bus station, when officers observed suspicious actions by defendant and companion, neither was able to produce adequate identification, and companion ran from police. Second search took place at Sioux City, Iowa, motel, after officers learned drugs had been sold in motel room and arrested all occupants for frequenting disorderly house. Court found officers had probable cause to detain defendant and conduct pat-down search at bus station, and to detain, arrest, and search defendant at motel.01/09/2006
-USA v. Lamere - Report and recommendation that motions to suppress evidence be denied. Officers stopped vehicle in which Defendant was passenger for purpose of arresting vehicle's driver. Drugs were found in vehicle and Defendant was arrested, as well. Rejecting Defendant's contrary argument, court found officers had probable cause to stop vehicle, arrest driver, search vehicle, and arrest Defendant.11/29/2005
-USA v. Morris -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motions to suppress evidence. Defendant arguerd officers lacked probable cause to stop his vehicle and arrest him, and also that his arrest was based on racial profiling. Court recommended motions be denied, finding no evidence to suggest racial profiling and officers had probable cause to stop and arrest defendant.11/17/2005
-United States of America v. Wendel -- Report and recommendation, recommending denial of motion to suppress evidence from search of defendant's residence. Court found defendant's consent to search was voluntary, and officers did not enter residence until written consent was given by defendant. 10/06/2005
-United States of America v. Johnson and Heidzig -- Report and Recommendation on defendants' motion to suppress, recommending motion be granted as to pre-Miranda statements, and denied as to post-Miranda statements and also as to cocaine found on defendant Heidzig's person. One key issue was whether officer's statement to defendant Heidzig that he wanted item she was concealing, and his directions to her to remove the item from her pants and place it on the floorboard of his vehicle, constituted questioning for purposes of Miranda. Court found that it did; however, court also found defendant Heidzig was undr de facto arrest at the time, and therefore, was subject to search incident to arrest, which would have led to discovery of drugs in any event.09/22/2005
-United States of America v. Keough -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained in warrantless search of his residence. Court found Government failed to meet its burden to show defendant's consent to search was voluntary, and recommended motion be granted.07/21/2005
-United States of America v. King - report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress his confession, recommending motion be denied. Court found defendant was not promised leniency in return for information, and he was not mentally impaired by virtue of being under the influence of drugs at time of confession.07/11/2005
-United States of America v. Wendelsdorf -- Report and recommendation on motion to suppress evidence arising from execution of search warrant at defendant's residence. Court found probable cause to support the warrant and recommended denial of motion.06/09/2005
-United States of America v. Aguilar-Barraza -- Report and recommendation on defendants' motions to suppress evidence. Court found pre-Miranda questions about whether defendant was in possession of drugs were intended to elicit incriminating statements and should be suppressed. Court found no constitutional infirmity in search of defendant incident to arrest, search of defendant's vehicle, consent search of defendant's room in family home, search of second defendant's vehicle in parking area across alley from residence, search warrant for family residence, and defendant's post-Miranda statements.06/08/2005
-United States of America v. Wendelsdorf -- Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment on basis of pre-indictment delay, or alternatively to amend or strike one count for insufficiency of evidence. Court found defendant failed to show improper motive for pre-indictment delay and failed to show prejudice resulting therefrom. Court further found question of sufficiency of evidence is one for jury. Court recommended denying motion on all grounds. 06/03/2005
-United States of America v. Jones -- Report and recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Defendant, who was stopped and then arrested for minor traffic violations, claimed officer lacked probable cause to detain him at scene to await drug dog, to arrest him, and to search his vehicle incident to arrest. Defendant also claimed search warrant application lacked probable cause because it failed to show connection between defendant and place to be searched. Court found officer had probable cause to stop, detain, and arrest defendant; to search vehicle incident to arrest; and for magistrate to find probable cause to issue search warrant.06/01/2005
-United States of America v. Wendelsdorf -- Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to transfer trial to another division within the district. Court recommends trial court reserve ruling on the motion for transfer until voir dire, or at least until responses are received to jury questionnaire.05/27/2005
-USA v. Hessman -- Report and recommendation, recommending denial of defendant's motion to dismiss indictment for speedy trial violation. Court found no speedy trial violation where neither party had notified the court, as previously ordered, of U.S. Supreme Court's denial of defendant's petition for writ of certiorari.05/20/2005
-United States of America v. Hinman, Dose and Weber (Report and recommendation on motions to dismiss Second Superseding Indictment, or to require plaintiff to elect between what defendants claimed to be multiplicitous counts. Defendants raised two double jeopardy arguments against indictment which charged them with violations of 18 USC 1035 and 18 USC 1001. Court rejected both arguments and recommended motions to dismiss be denied. Court also rejected one defendant's claim that indictment failed to charge defendants properly under 18 USC 1516.)04/22/2005
-United States of America v. Nairn (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion pursuant to 28 USC 2255. Defendant sought to withdraw guilty plea to one charge of indictment on basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. Court found counsel was ineffective in failing to recognize, and advise defendant of fact, that plaintiff's Rule 11 letter and court's recitation of elements of one charge were incorrect. Defendant pled guilty to charge of possessing firearms "during and in relation to" a drug crime, when indictment charged him with possessing firearms "in furtherance of" a drug crime. Court recommended defendant be allowed to withdraw guilty plea to that count of the indictment.)04/12/2005
-United States of America v. Summers (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to dismiss indictment for violation of Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial. Applying Barker v. Wingo, court found approximately one-year delay between indictment and defndant's arrest gave rise to presumption of prejudice; delay was due to plaintiff's negligence; defendant had asserted his right timely; and delay had prejudiced defendant's ability to defend against the charges. Finding all four Barker factors weighed in defendant's favor, court recommended dismissal of indictment.)03/18/2005
-USA v. Ortiz-Martinez (Report and recommendation that defendant's motion to dismiss be denied. Defendant sought dismissal of Indictment for violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a) requirements that he be brought before a magistrate judge "without unreasonable delay." Court found defendant was in state custody until one day before his initial appearance, and defendant failed to show any prejudice from delay in arresting him on federal charges and bringing him to federal court.)03/07/2005
-USA v. Lee (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Court found defendant's companion had expectation of privacy in motel room and right to consent to search of motel room; officers' forced entry into motel room occupied by defendant was warranted based on outstanding arrest warrant and on exigent circumstances; search of motel room was valid based on companion's consent to search. Court recommended defendant's motion to suppress be denied.)02/23/2005
-USA v. Dose, et al. (Report and recommendation on numerous motions challenging sufficiency of Superseding Indictment. In light of 1/12/05 Supreme Court decision in Booker and Fanfan, court recommended defendants' motions to strike "Notice of Additional Relevant Facts" from indictment be granted (withdrawing prior R&R to the contrary). Court recommended denying motions to dismiss indictment or require Government to elect between charging defendants under 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 1035 on basis of double jeopardy; court found Congress intended that conduct may be punishable under both sections. Court recommended striking fraud allegations for lack of specificity, but otherwise recommended denying motion to dismiss for failure to state an offense. Court recommended denying motion to suppress and in limine to prevent introduction of evidence derived from interview between corporation's attorney and defendant Hinman; court found no attorney-client privilege existed between attorney and defendant.)01/12/2005
-United States v. Piedra (Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained in stop and search of vehicle he was driving. Court found 1. defendant had standing to challenge search of vehicle he was driving with owner's permission; 2. defendant did not commit traffic violation that would provide probable cause for stop of vehicle; but 3. officers had reasonable suspicion that vehicle was involved in criminal activity, and therefore stop of vehicle was valid; and 4. officers were permitted to search passenger compartment of vehicle incident to defendant's arrest for driving without a license. Court recommended motion be denied.)12/15/2004
-United States of America v. Felix Aguin-Guerra (Report and recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress un-Mirandized statements he made to USICE agents. Agents interviewed defendant at jail after his arrest on traffic charges. Court found agents' questioning, without advising defendant of his rights, violated Miranda, and did not fall within "routine booking exception." Court recommended suppression of defendant's statements regarding his citizenship and immigration status.)08/20/2004
-United States v. Spencer (Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during execution of search warrant at his residence. Court found warrant affiant's combination of police officer informant and concerned citizen informant on same page was not fatal to probable cause determination. Court further found warrant's incorporation by reference of attachment that described place to be searched with particularity, and presence of complete warrant, including attachment, at scene of search, did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights pursuant to Groh v. Ramirez, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004). Court found that even if defendant's rights were violated by officers' failure to serve him with complete copy of warrant at time of search. Leon good faith exception to exclusionary rule was applicable because officers relied in good faith on warrant that was supported by ample probable cause.)08/11/2004
-United States of America v. Kunkel (Report and recommendation on motion to suppress evidence obtained during cursory search of premises incident to defendant's arrest. Court found an evidentiary hearing was not warranted because it was clear suppression was improper as a matter of law. Court held officers performed a proper protective sweep of premises incident to defendant's arrest, and recommended the motion be denied.)07/15/2004
-United States v. Barnett (Report and Recommendation on motions filed by defendant charged with violations of federal firearms laws (including charge under 18 U.S.C. section 924(c)), seeking dismissal of Superseding Indictment on grounds of (1) lack of specificity, (2) unconstitutional vagueness, (3) selective or vindictive prosecution. Issues discussed include whether indictment must state defendant had knowledge of specific characteristics of sawed-off shotgun that make it a "destructive device," possession of sawed-off shotgun as "crime of violence" for purposes of sction 924(c) offense; scienter requirement for section 5861 violations; elements of offence under section 922(g)(3), and constitutionality of that section; elements of prima facie case of selective prosecution; and showing necessary to obtain discovery on issue of selective prosecution.)04/09/2004
-United States of America v. Darrian Jordan and Mendoor Smith (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence. Court found defendants failed to make substantial preliminary showing necessary to obtain a Franks hearing, and in any event, probable cause existed to issue search warrant. Court also found defendant Jordan ws searched incident to arrest, not pursuant to warrant. Recommends motions and request for evidentiary hearing be denied.)03/16/2004
-United States of America v. Johnson (Report and Recommendation on motion to suppress evidence, filed by defendant Brion Dodd Johnson. Court found defendant failed to make substantial preliminary showing necessary to obtain a Franks hearing, and recommended defendant's motion and request for hearing be denied.)03/16/2004
-United States of America v. Barnett (Report and recommendation on two motions to dismiss in case charging various firearms violations. Defendant challenged indictment on basis of lack of specificity and unconstitutional vagueness. In finding indictment sufficient to allege an offense warranting conviction, court discussed: requirements for an indictment; elements of offense under 18 USC section 924(c); inherently dangerous nature of sawed-off shotgun; whether indictment must allege specific characteristics of weapon that make it a "destructive device;" and scienter requirements of 924(c). Court recommended reserving ruling until close of evidence at trial on challenge based on unconstitutional vagueness of 18 USC section 922(g) (noting nature of challege is statute's failure to define "unlawful user of a controlled substance").03/11/2004
-United States of America v. Vaudt (R&R on defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during execution of state search warrant. Court found warrant application contained sufficient facts to support magistrate's finding of probable cause, and in any event, even if warrant was not supported by probable cause, officers relied on warrant reasonably and in good faith, applying United States v. Leon.)02/19/2004
-United States of America v. Betterton (R&R on defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during inventory search after vehicle was impounded. Defendant was stopped for equipment violation (cracked windshield). He was arrested when officer learned he was driving under suspension. No one else was present to move the vehicle from the roadway, and it was stopped in a "no parking" zone, creating a traffic hazard. Inventory search was performed following the impoundment, pursuant to departmental policy. Court recommended motion to suppress be denied, finding impoundment and subsequent inventory search were lawful, and nothing that in any event, officers could have searched the vehicle incident to Defendant's arrest.)11/24/2003
-United States of America v. Elmer Taylor (R&R recommending denial of majority of motion to suppress evidence in criminal case. Defendant claimed he was not competent to understand and enter into a plea agreement, and factual stipulations in the plea agreement should not be admissible against him at trial. He also sought to suppress evidence arising from a stop and subsequent search of a vehicle, and statements he made on the night of his arrest. Court discussed requiements for voluntary, knowing, and competent waiver by a defendant of the plea-statement protections provided by Fed. R. Evid. 410.)10/22/2003
-United States of America v. Howard (R&R recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Issues: officers' right to do protective frisk for weapons, discussing Terry v. Ohio and United States v. Roggeman; officers' authority to enter motel room to execute arrest warrant, discussing Payton v. New York and United States v. Junkman; "public safety exception" to Miranda requirements)08/14/2003
-United States of America v. Saucillo (R&R recommending denial of defendant's motion to suppress in drug distribution case. Defendant threw drugs out of second-story window onto ground in rear of multi-family dwelling. Curtilage was unfenced and totally open to public access. Court found defendant consented to search of apartment, and he had no legitimate expectation of privacy in curtilage of multi-family dwelling.)05/13/2003
-United States of America v. Hessman (Report and Recommendation on defendant's motion to suppress. Officer faxed unsigned, unsworn search warrant application and affidavit to State magistrate at out-of-town hotel. Magistrate signed warrant and faxed it back to officer. Officer was sworn and signed application and affidavit next morning, after search was concluded and defendant had been arrested. Court found search warrant based on unsigned, unsworn application and affidavit was invalid under Fourth Amendment. Court also found Leon good faith exception did not apply, and recommended defendant's post-arrest statements be suppressed under Wong Sun exclusionary rule.)04/14/2003
-United States of America v. Jay Del Drahota (R&R on several pretrial motions in this drug conspiracy case. Of particular interest is defendant's claim that State authorities promised him immunity if he cooperated with law enforcement in connection with the prosecution of another individual. Although finding the State's grant of immunity could not bind federal authorities, the court nevertheless found defendant's confession was involuntary, and recommended Kastigar hearing to determine whether untainted evidence exists to support the indictment. Other issues discussed include standards for wavier of right to counsel by defendant appearing pro se; waiver of Miranda rights; standards for dismissal based on pre-indictment delay.)03/20/2003
-United States v. Ketzeback (R&R recommending defendant's motion to suppress be granted due to officers' reckless or intentional omission from search warrant application of information impacting informant's credibility. Issues: requirements for Franks hearing; reliance on confidential or anonymous informants; Leon analysis)02/10/2003
Show details for Social Security CasesSocial Security Cases
Show details for Judge Jon Stuart ScolesJudge Jon Stuart Scoles
Show details for Judge Donald E. O'BrienJudge Donald E. O'Brien
Show details for Judge Edward J McManusJudge Edward J McManus
Show details for Judge Leonard T. StrandJudge Leonard T. Strand