United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division
JEFFREY L. VIKEN CHIEF JUDGE.
jury indicted defendant Lester Waters, Jr., in a six-count
indictment. (Docket 19). Mr. Waters is charged in counts I
and IV with assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3) and 1153; in counts II and V
with assault resulting in serious bodily injury in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) and 1153; and in counts
III and VI with discharging, brandishing or possessing a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in
violation 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). Id. In
counts I and II the alleged victim is Elgie Iron Bear and in
counts IV and V the alleged victim is Charles Janis.
before the court is defendant's motion to suppress his
statements made to law enforcement on January 25, 2018.
(Dockets 61 & 76 at p. 4:6-11). Mr. Waters “do[es]
not seek suppression of [a] January 29, [2018, ] statement
at the Pine Ridge Adult Offenders Facility.” (Docket 76
at p. 4:8-11). The United States opposes defendant's
motion. (Docket 83).
suppression motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Daneta
Wollmann for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the court's March 9, 2015,
standing order. The magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary
hearing on November 20, 2018, at which two witnesses
testified and four exhibits were received into evidence.
(Dockets 74 & 76). The parties submitted post-hearing
briefing. (Dockets 79 & 83). The magistrate judge issued
a report and recommendation (“R&R”)
concluding defendant's motion should be granted in part
and denied in part. (Docket 87 at p. 1). Defendant timely
filed objections to the R&R. (Docket 91). The government
filed a response to defendant's objections. (Docket 92).
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.
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 R&R 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 R&R is
adopted in its entirety. The court grants in part and denies
in part defendant's suppression motion.
objections to the R&R are summarized as follow:
1. Mr. Waters objects generally to all factual findings and
legal conclusions made by the magistrate judge.
2. Mr. Waters objects to the magistrate judge's finding
that Officer Hunter did not deceive the defendant.
3. Mr. Waters should have been advised of his
Miranda rights prior to being subjected to
interrogation by Officer Hunter.
4. Mr. Waters objects to the magistrate judge's finding
his statements were admissible under the public safety
exception to Miranda.
(Docket 91). “For the foregoing reasons, ” Mr.
Waters argues “the district court should not accept the
magistrate court's [R&R] . . . and should grant
Defendant's Motion to Suppress.” Id. at p.
defendant's objections will ...