USA v. Humphrey et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, 	No. CR25-3065-LTS-KEM
vs.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER ON REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION	BETHANEE CALVERT,
Defendant.
This matter is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 164) in
which the Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney, Chief United States Magistrate Judge,
recommends that I grant defendant Bethanee Calvert’s motion (Docs. 130, 141) to
suppress. 	Neither party has filed substantive objections1 and the time for doing so has
expired.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Calvert is charged in a superseding indictment (Doc. 89) with one count of
conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A) and 846 and one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled
substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). She seeks to suppress
statements she made to law enforcement during a traffic stop and execution of a search
warrant, arguing that there is no evidence she was read and waived her rights under
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
1 Calvert filed “objections” (Doc. 173) clarifying a typographical error and evidence cited in the
R&R, but notes they have no impact on the analysis.
Case 3:25-cr-03065-LTS-KEM Document 175 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Judge Mahoney held an evidentiary hearing on September 23, 2026. 	Doc. 158.
The Government presented testimony from Lieutenant Frank Hodak of the Cerro Gordo
County Sheriff’s Office; Iowa State Patrol Trooper Mitchell Williams; and Deputy Adam
Nerlien of the Wright County Sheriff’s Office. 	Doc. 164 at 1. 	Judge Mahoney also
received the following exhibits into evidence:
• 	Exhibit B – Wright County Sheriff’s Deputy Ray Zeien’s patrol car dash
camera video;
• 	Exhibit B1 – Deputy Zeien’s patrol car backseat video;
• 	Exhibit B2 – Deputy Nerlien’s body camera video;
• 	Exhibit C – Lieutenant Hodak’s police report;
• 	Exhibit D – Emails between defense counsel and the Government; and
• 	Exhibit 1 – Lieutenant Hodak’s audio recording
Id. at 1-2. Judge Mahoney issued the R&R (Doc. 164) on September 30, 2026. Trial is
scheduled to begin January 19, 2027.
II. 	THE R&R
Judge Mahoney summarized the factual and procedural background of this case,
which I find unnecessary to repeat herein but for Calvert’s clarification that Deputy
Nerlien stated in Exhibit B2 that Calvert was “such a horrible liar” rather than a “terrible
liar.” 	See Doc. 164 at 7; Doc. 173. 	Judge Mahoney recommends granting the motion
to suppress, concluding that Calvert was in custody when she made statements in response
to officers’ questions and that she was not advised of, and did not waive, her Miranda
rights. Doc. 164 at 13-16.
Case 3:25-cr-03065-LTS-KEM Document 175 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 4

3
III. 	STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district judge must review a magistrate judge’s R&R under the following
standards:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve
and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations
as provided by rules of court. 	A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may
accept, 	reject, 	or 	modify, 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part, 	the 	findings 	or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 	The judge may also
receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b). 	Thus, when a party objects to
any portion of an R&R, the district judge must undertake a de novo review of that portion.
Any portions of an R&R to which no objections have been made must be reviewed
under at least a “clearly erroneous” standard. 	See, e.g., Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d
793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that when no objections are filed “[the district court
judge] would only have to review the findings of the magistrate judge for clear error”).
As the Supreme Court has explained, “[a] finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” 	Anderson v. City of
Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co.,
333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). However, a district judge may elect to review an R&R under
a more-exacting standard even if no objections are filed:
Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article III judge of any
issue need only ask. Moreover, while the statute does not require the judge
to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude
further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party,
under a de novo or any other standard.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
Case 3:25-cr-03065-LTS-KEM Document 175 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IV. 	DISCUSSION
Because the parties have no substantive objections to the R&R, I have reviewed it
for clear error. 	Judge Mahoney applied the appropriate legal standards when she
determined that the Government had not met its burden of proving either that (1) the
advisement of Miranda rights was not required under the circumstances or that (2) law
enforcement had provided Calvert the necessary Miranda warning and that she waived
her Miranda rights prior to being interrogated by officers. 	Based on my review of the
record, I find no error – clear or otherwise – in Judge Mahoney’s recommendation. 	As
such, I adopt the R&R in its entirety, with the suggested clarifications from Calvert.
V. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein:
1. 	I 	accept 	Judge 	Mahoney’s 	R&R 	(Doc. 	164) 	with 	the 	modifications
described in Calvert’s objections (Doc. 173). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2. 	Pursuant 	to 	Judge 	Mahoney’s 	recommendation, 	the 	Government 	is
prohibited from using in its case-in-chief Calvert’s unwarned statements on August 22,
2024, after she was handcuffed.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2026.
__________________________
Leonard T. Strand
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cr-03065-LTS-KEM Document 175 Filed 10/16/26 Page 4 of 4