United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division
JEFFREY L. VIKEN CHIEF JUDGE.
jury indicted Jesse Bruce for conspiracy to distribute a
controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
846, 841(a) and 841(b)(1)(B) and possession of a firearm by a
prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). (Docket 1). Mr. Bruce filed a motion
“to suppress all evidence seized by law enforcement
from him and his vehicle and to suppress statements . . .
.” (Docket 24).
motion to suppress was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Daneta Wollmann pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and the standing order of March 9, 2015. An
evidentiary hearing was held on May 25, 2016. (Docket 45).
Magistrate Judge Wollmann issued a report and recommendation
(“R&R”) on defendant's motion to
suppress. (Docket 67). The magistrate judge recommended
defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence be
denied, to suppress statements Mr. Bruce made in the field be
denied and to suppress statements once he was in custody be
denied as moot. Id. at p. 18. The defendant timely
filed his objections to the report and recommendation.
the Federal Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), if a
party files written objections to the magistrate judge's
proposed findings and recommendations, the district court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.”
Id. The court may “accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” Id. See also Fed. R.
Crim. P. 59(b)(3).
court completed a de novo review of those portions
of the R&R to which objections were filed. For the
reasons stated below, the court finds the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation is an appropriate
application of the law to the facts presented by the parties
at the suppression hearing. For the reasons stated below, the
defendant's objections are overruled and the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge is adopted in its
objects to facts found by the magistrate judge is as follows:
1. Mr. Bruce's vehicle did not have a functional
driver's side rear brake light and did not have a
functional rear license plate light;
2. Mr. Bruce did not show proof of valid insurance for the
3. Mr. Bruce had a prior citation for no insurance on a
4. Mr. Bruce could not provide proof of a history of
insurance on the vehicle;
5. Mr. Bruce was cited for no proof of insurance and issued
two warning tickets for the two separate light violations;
6. Officer Sayles had previously cited Mr. Bruce for no proof
of insurance on his vehicle;
7. Mr. Bruce was asked to provide a blood or urine sample;
8. Mr. Bruce possessed a slim jim at the time of the traffic
9. The police officers conducted an inventory search of Mr.
Bruce's vehicle; and
10. Mr. Bruce did not have a concealed weapon permit.
(Docket 68 at pp. 2-3).
defendant's objections to the magistrate judge's
legal conclusions are summarized as follows:
1. There was no probable cause to stop Mr. Bruce's
2. The stop was illegally expanded to conduct an inventory
3. Mr. Bruce was subject to a custodial interrogation without
being advised of his Miranda rights;
4. Mr. Bruce did not waive his Miranda rights; and
5. All evidence seized was seized illegally.
(Docket 68 at pp. 6-12).
defendant's objections will be separately addressed in
categories which make sense chronologically with the ...