USA v. Hebert

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 3:25-CR-66-KAC-JEM
)
PATRICK WARREN HEBERT, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
All pretrial motions have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
for disposition or recommendation as appropriate. This case is before the Court on Defendant
Patrick Warren Hebert’s Motion to File Out of Time Pretrial Motion, asking to file a motion to
suppress as evidence the contents of a suitcase seized and searched on December 13, 2024, beyond
the motion deadline [Doc. 21 p. 1], and the Government’s Motion for Extension of Time to file
Response to Motion to Suppress [Doc. 26].
The last pretrial motion deadline in this case expired on September 3, 2025 [Doc. 9 p. 1].
As grounds for the late motion, Defendant explains that his counsel and the Government have
continued to search for additional discovery material based upon Anderson County Sheriff’s
Office’s (“ACSO”) lack of body-worn and cruiser video of traffic stops [Doc. 21 p. 1]. Defendant’s
counsel has conducted additional investigation into the facts surrounding Defendant’s arrest on
December 13, 2024 [Id.]. His motion reflects that the Government does not oppose the request for
the late filing nor the request for a motion hearing [Id.].
The Court ordered Defendant to supplement his motion and requested clarification of the
timeline and details of the investigation [Doc. 23]. In the supplement, Defendant explains that
Case 3:25-cr-00066-KAC-JEM Document 27 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
initial discovery in his case lacked any audio/video evidence from the traffic stop and his arrest
[Doc. 24 ¶ 1]. He states that further investigation was needed to assess how the traffic stop
occurred, determine what was said between Defendant and the arresting officers, and to attempt to
create a timeline of events [Id.]. He asserts that his counsel requested any audio/video recordings
of the interaction with Defendant and ACSO, but that the request went unanswered [Id. ¶ 2].
Following a subsequent request, Defendant’s counsel received the radio traffic surrounding
Defendant’s arrest and the Computer Aided Dispatch report from ACSO [Id.]. Defendant avers
that simultaneously, the Government reached out to ACSO and the 7th Judicial Taskforce to
inquire where any audio/video recordings of Defendant’s arrest existed, but it was unsuccessful in
obtaining additional information/evidence from the agencies [Id. ¶ 3].
Motions seeking suppression of evidence must be made before trial. Fed. R. Crim.
P. 12(b)(3)(C). The Court has discretion to permit an untimely motion upon a showing of “good
cause.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3). “Good cause is a ‘flexible standard’ requiring an explanation
for both the delay and the potential prejudice.” United States v. Trujillo-Molina, 678 F. App’x 335,
337 (6th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted)). “At a minimum, a party must ‘articulate some legitimate
explanation for the failure to timely file.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Walden, 625 F.3d 961, 965
(6th Cir. 2010)). When determining the potential prejudice from a late-filed motion, the Court
considers “all interests in the particular case” including those of the Court and the public.
Id. at 339 (quoting Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3)).
Here, Defendant explains that the late suppression motion is due to the unsuccessful
attempts to receive audio/video recordings of his arrest. The Court notes that the Government does
not assert prejudice and consents to the leave requested. Accordingly, the Court finds that
Defendant clears the good cause hurdle.
Case 3:25-cr-00066-KAC-JEM Document 27 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) 	Defendant Patrick Hebert’s Motion to File Out of Time
Pretrial Motion [Doc. 21] and the Government’s Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Suppress
[Doc. 26] are GRANTED;
(2) 	the Government shall respond to Defendant Patrick Hebert’s
[Doc. 21] on or before April 20, 2026;
(3) 	Defendant may file a reply on or before April 27, 2026; and
(4) 	on or before April 27, 2026, Defendant shall confer with
counsel for the Government and file a notice of availability
for a hearing during the weeks of May 4, May 18, and
June 1, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
______________________________
Jill E. McCook
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cr-00066-KAC-JEM Document 27 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>