USA v. Pineiro et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHEARN JOSHUA,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:21-cr-00037-JMK
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Before the Court at Docket 53 is Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, alleging
that both his detention and the seizure and search of his vehicle were impressible. 	The
Government responded in opposition at Docket 55, arguing that: (1) Defendant’s detention
was permissible as incident to the execution of a search warrant; (2) that law enforcement
had probable cause to arrest Defendant for possession of marijuana; and (3) that the
positive K-9 drug alert during the stop provided probable cause to search Defendant’s
vehicle. 	The motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Smith, and, on
June 28, 2021, Magistrate Judge Smith conducted an evidentiary hearing. At Docket 74,
Judge Smith issued her Final Report and Recommendation, in which she recommended
that Defendant’s motion be granted. 	The Government objected to that Report and
Recommendation at Docket 79.
Case 3:21-cr-00037-JMK-MMS Document 84 Filed 09/30/21 Page 1 of 3

United States v. Joshua 	Case No. 3:21-cr-00037-JMK
Order Granting Motion to Suppress 	Page 2
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That
statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 	A court is to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”2 But as to those topics on which
no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a
district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves
accept as correct.”3
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court grant the Motion to
Dismiss. The Court has reviewed the Final Report and Recommendation, and agrees with
its analysis. The Government objected “to the magistrate judge’s factual findings regarding
officer knowledge of the defendant’s involvement in this case and the subsequent finding
of lack of probable cause, as well as the finding that the United States failed to meet its
burden in establish[ing] a lack of causal connection between the K-9’s first interior alert
on the vehicle and second exterior alert.”4 Ultimately, the Court is not persuaded by the
Government’s objections and concurs with Magistrate Judge Smith’s analysis.5
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Final Report and Recommendation, and
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Suppress is GRANTED. The Government
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2 Id.
3 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or
legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).
4 Docket 79 at 1–2.
5 Docket 74.
Case 3:21-cr-00037-JMK-MMS Document 84 Filed 09/30/21 Page 2 of 3

United States v. Joshua 	Case No. 3:21-cr-00037-JMK
Order Granting Motion to Suppress 	Page 3
is prohibited from admitting the following items for use at trial, in its case-in-chief or as
substantive evidence of guilt: (1) any items seized from Defendant’s person at the time of
his unlawful arrest on February 18, 2021; and (2) any items found inside the Porsche
associated with Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2021, at Anchorage,
Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cr-00037-JMK-MMS Document 84 Filed 09/30/21 Page 3 of 3