USA v. Burk

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHNNYLEE PRESTON BURK,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-cr-00022-RRB-DMS
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AT
DOCKET 106
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Initial Reports and Recommendations (Dockets 77,
81, and 160) regarding Defendant's Motions to Suppress Evidence (Dockets 33, 38, and 106), in
conjunction with the parties' Objections and Responses (Dockets 80, 86, 102, 104, 166, 169), the
Magistrate's previous Final Report and Recommendation (Docket 95), and the current Final Report
and Recommendation (Docket 170), the Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Final Report
and Recommendation at Docket 170 in its entirety. It is very thorough and well-reasoned.
Like the Magistrate Judge, the Court relies upon the Supreme Court's decision in Florida v.
Royer. 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (plurality opinion). While it is a plurality opinion, Royer is nonetheless
instructive and on point regarding the critical issue in this matter. Just as the initially lawful Terry
stop in Royer transformed into an unlawful arrest through the seizure of the defendant's travel
documents and his transportation to a small airport holding room, the detainment and transportation
of Defendant away from his vehicle in this matter was unlawful. In both cases, the removal of the
defendant did not further the investigative purpose of the Terry stop and was “more intrusive than
necessary” Id. at 504.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS AT 106 - 1
3:15-cr-0022-RRB
Case 3:15-cr-00022-RRB-DMS Document 172 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 2

Moreover, the replaced GPS tracker1 was utilized within almost 24 hours of the illegal arrest
to facilitate the targeted traffic stop of Defendant which yielded the methamphetamine central to this
case. The chronological proximity of the traffic stop and its relationship to the illegal arrest, without
attenuation or an intervening event of significance, requires suppression of the discovered
methamphetamine. See United States v. Shetler, 665 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2011).
Finally, the Court notes that its decision turns solely on the matter of the illegal arrest. The
Court makes no ruling as to any of the other procedural actions that have been raised by Defendant
in his several motions.
Therefore, Defendant's Supplemental Motion at Docket 106 to suppress the
methamphetamine that underlies the present Indictment, consisting of one count of Possession of
a Controlled Substance with Intent to Distribute, is GRANTED. The Defendant’s First and Second
Motions to Suppress at Dockets 33 and 38 are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of March, 2016.
S/RALPH R. BEISTLINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 While replacement of the GPS tracker may have been legally accomplished without
removing Defendant from the scene, that issue need not be addressed here for law enforcement
chose to pursue a more intrusive alternative.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS AT 106 - 2
3:15-cr-0022-RRB
Case 3:15-cr-00022-RRB-DMS Document 172 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 2