United States District Court, D. Minnesota
R. Winter, United States Attorney for the Government.
W. DeVore, for Defendant.
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Luis Carlos Favela's timely
Objection (“Objection to R&R”) [Doc. No. 83]
to the December 4, 2019 Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) [Doc. No. 81] filed by Magistrate
Judge David Schultz. The R&R addressed Mr. Favela's
pretrial motion to suppress evidence [Doc. No. 49] obtained from
a search of a garage and the vehicle within that garage. The
magistrate judge held an evidentiary hearing on this motion
on November 5, 2019. (See Minute Entry [Doc. No.
76].) Magistrate Judge Schultz recommended denying
Defendant's motion to suppress on two alternative
grounds: (1) Mr. Favela lacks standing to challenge the
searches, and (2) the search warrant was supported by ample
probable cause. (See R&R [Doc. No. 81] at 3.)
Mr. Favela filed a one-page objection, challenging only the
conclusion that the search warrant was supported by probable
cause. [Doc. No. 83.] Beyond objecting to this ultimate legal
conclusion, Mr. Favela does not make any specific objections
to the R&R and relies on his initial motion and his
arguments at the evidentiary hearing. (Id.) For the
reasons set forth below, Mr. Favela's Objection is
overruled, and the R&R is affirmed and adopted in full.
is charged by way of indictment with one count of conspiracy
to distribute methamphetamine in violation of Title 21,
United States Code, Sections 841 (a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and
846. The factual background of this case is set forth in the
R&R, which the Court incorporates herein by reference.
Stated briefly, Ramsey County police officers used
information from three confidential sources to apply for a
search warrant to search a garage located in St. Anthony,
Minnesota, as well as the vehicle within that garage.
(R&R at 2 [Doc. No. 81].) The three separate confidential
sources linked the garage to a methamphetamine trafficking
operation. (Id.) Two of the sources gave July 19,
2019, as the date of drug delivery, and one provided the
model of vehicle-a Range Rover-the drugs would arrive in.
(Id.) One of the confidential sources also informed
law enforcement that the garage belonged to Joseph Bernhardt.
(Id.) Law enforcement independently verified that
the garage in question belonged to Mr. Bernhardt.
(Id.) Officers “surveilled the garage on July
19, and saw a tow truck drive a light brown, older model
Range Rover with no plates into Mr. Bernhardt's
garage.” (Id.) (internal citation omitted).)
on this information, a Hennepin County District Court judge
authorized the search. (Id. at 3.) Law enforcement
officers searched the garage and vehicle the same day.
party objects to an R&R, the Court undertakes an
independent, de novo review and “may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012); see also D. Minn.
Favela's general objection to the R&R directs the
Court to consider the grounds set forth in his initial motion
[Doc. No. 49] and at the hearing [Doc. No. 76], and appears
to assert that these arguments demonstrate why the magistrate
judge erred. (See Objection to R&R [Doc. No. 83]
at 1.) Mr. Favela further states-without citing any
supporting authority-that the search warrant lacks probable
cause “because it lacks specificity in factual
detail.” (Id.) But this conclusory objection
appears to overlook the information provided in the warrant
application and supporting affidavit. None of the cited
factual details above that “provide  probable cause,
” (R&R at 5 [Doc. No. 81]), are addressed by Mr.
Favela's one-page objection.
Court has undertaken an independent, de novo review
of the record, the applicable law, and the magistrate
judge's application of the law to the facts of this case.
The Court finds no error and agrees with the magistrate
judge's conclusions. Accordingly, the Court overrules Mr.
Favela's objection, and affirms and adopts the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation in full.
on the submission and the entire file and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Defendant's Objection [Doc. No. 83] to the December 4,
2019 Report and ...