USA v. Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT PIERCE DIVISION
CASE NO. 25-14060-CR-CANNON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMTANNA R. BURGESS,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation issued by
Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and
Statements [ECF No. 42]. Defendant timely filed objections to the Report’s recommendation to
deny suppression of the firearm and statements [ECF No. 43]. The United States does not object
to the Report except to the extent that it contains an immaterial adverse credibility determination
[ECF No. 44]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [ECF No. 42], the parties’
Objections [ECF Nos. 43–44], and the full record pertinent to the Motion to Suppress.
Following such review, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 42] is ACCEPTED in all respects except
to the extent that it contains an adverse credibility determination regarding the extent
to which Deputy Donnelly recognized the vehicle in question as being connected to
Defendant (and relatedly, the point at which Deputy Donnelly reached a conclusive
Case 2:25-cr-14060-AMC Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2026 Page 1 of 3

CASE NO. 25-14060-CR-CANNON
2
determination on that issue in the course of the traffic stop) [ECF No. 42 pp. 8–9].1 As
the Report acknowledges, that credibility finding is neither determinative nor essential
to the resolution of the Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 42 p. 9]. As a result, the Court is
not bound to accept it or to conduct an additional hearing to reexamine the particular
testimony. See Louis v. Blackburn, 630 F.2d 1105, 1109 (5th Cir. 1980) (prohibiting a
district court from entering an order inconsistent with “determinative” credibility
choices of a magistrate without “personally hearing the live testimony”). 	More
substantively, the Court agrees with the United States that the collective testimony of
Deputy 	Donnelly 	on 	the 	issue 	in 	question—including 	Deputy 	Donnelly’s
acknowledgment that he harbored suspicions of a connection between Defendant and
the blue Nissan prior to the stop [ECF No. 44 p. 4 (citing transcript)]—does not warrant
an adverse credibility finding on the specific facts presented, at least not without
additional precision and clarification. 	This conclusion does not offend the strong
deference to be afforded to credibility findings given the non-essential nature of the
finding in question. Cf. Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny’s, Inc., 500 F.3d 1230, 1250
(11th Cir. 2007) (“[A] district court may not override essential, demeanor-intensive
fact finding by a magistrate judge without hearing the evidence itself or citing an
exceptional justification for discarding the magistrate judge’s findings.” (emphasis
added)).
1 The Report references and questions Deputy Donnelly’s testimony on that topic, finding it
“unlikely that Deputy Donnell did not recognize the car as one connected to Defendant at the time
the officers decided to make the stop [ECF No. 42 p. 9].
Case 2:25-cr-14060-AMC Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2026 Page 2 of 3

CASE NO. 25-14060-CR-CANNON
3
2. 	The balance of the well-reasoned Report is ACCEPTED over Defendant’s Objections,
which do not provide a basis to disturb the conclusions reached in the Report.2
3. 	Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART,
consistent with the Report as modified herein [ECF No. 20].
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 23rd day of February 2026.
_________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
2 The United States does not object to the Report’s determination that the police lacked probable
cause as to the police K9 alert [see generally ECF No. 44]. The Court finds no clear error in the
Report’s conclusion on that subject given the United States’ anemic offer of proof on the specific
K9 alert in this case.
Case 2:25-cr-14060-AMC Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/23/2026 Page 3 of 3