United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
February 9, 2016, two Fort Wayne Police Department officers
responded to a dispatch for a party armed at a particular
address in Fort Wayne. This led to the arrest and search of
Antonio Cortez Harris, who was carrying a handgun and drugs.
On March 23, 2016, a grand jury indicted the Defendant for
possession of heroin with intent to distribute, possession of
a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and
being a felon in possession of a firearm. On June 17, 2016,
the Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence [ECF No.
19], alleging that the search and seizure conducted on
February 9, 2016, was unlawful. Upon referral from this
Court, Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins held an evidentiary
hearing on August 11, 2016, received post-hearing briefing,
and issued a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 33],
recommending that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion
to Suppress Evidence.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)-(B), a magistrate judge does
not have authority to issue a final order on a motion to
suppress evidence in a criminal case. Instead, the magistrate
judge submits proposed findings of fact and recommendations
to the district court. If a party files a timely objection to
the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, §
636(b)(1) provides that
the district judge is to make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made. The court may
accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge also
may receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.
time for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation
has passed, and no objections have been filed. Portions of a
recommendation to which no party objects are reviewed for
clear error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d
734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999).
Ron Partridge testified at the evidentiary hearing. The
Magistrate Judge found his uncontested testimony to be
entirely credible, and neither party has objected to this
assessment or to the Magistrate Judge's characterization
of the testimony. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's
findings of fact regarding the events of February 9, 2016.
Finding no clear error, the Court also adopts, in full, the
Magistrate Judge's detailed analysis of the law that is
applicable to 911 emergency calls by an eyewitness, and the
conclusion that the caller's information, in this case,
gave the officers the necessary reasonable suspicion to stop
the Defendant. Therefore, the Court adopts the recommendation
to deny the Motion to Suppress Evidence on grounds that the
officers did not violate the Defendant's Fourth Amendment
rights, either during the investigatory stop or the resulting
protective pat-down, as both were conducted within the
parameters of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
reasons stated above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 33], and DENIES the Motion to
Suppress Evidence [ECF No. 19] for the reasons set forth by