United States District Court, D. Nevada
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is the matter of United States v. Williams , case no. 2:12-cr-463-JCM-VCF. This order addresses the following:
Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's report and recommendation that defendant Frederick Williams' motion to suppress the search warrant be denied. (Doc. # 120).
The magistrate judge's report and recommendation that Williams' motion to suppress involuntary statements be granted. (Doc. # 121).
The magistrate judge's report and recommendation that defendant Jacqueline Gentle's motion to suppress the search warrant be denied. (Doc. # 128).
The magistrate judge's report and recommendation that Williams' motion to dismiss the indictment be denied. (Doc. # 202).
The magistrate judge's report and recommendation that Williams' motion to suppress the search warrant be denied. (Doc. # 203).
Williams' motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order denying his motion to reopen bail. (Doc. # 220).
Williams' motion for adoption of defense objections. (Doc. # 231).
Williams is awaiting trial on charges of false citizenship, 18 U.S.C. § 911, false statement in application for passport, 18 U.S.C. § 1542, aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
On December 11, 2012, Agent Roland of the United States Diplomatic Security Service applied for a search warrant for the premises located at 2637 Soledad Way, N. Las Vegas, Nevada 89030 (hereinafter "Soledad Way"), and two automobiles. The application/affidavit for search warrant stated that a cooperating witness ("CW") provided information to Agent Roland relating to defendant Williams and his co-defendants, and that "[t]he substantive information the CW provided to me has been independently corroborated by various investigative methods and the CW has proved to be reliable."
The search warrant application/affidavit identifies defendant Williams as "Subject 1, " and states that defendant Williams is alleged to have fraudulently obtained a U.S. passport using a computer and finding a man who is a U.S. citizen with the same name as his father. The application/affidavit also states that Williams is potentially involved in an unemployment compensation fraud scheme, and provides the background of the investigation into such allegations. The application/affidavit also discusses co-defendants and their involvement in the scheme. ( See application/affidavit for search warrant, doc. # 92-1).
The instant motions contest the validity of the warrant on numerous grounds, seek to dismiss the indictment on numerous grounds, seek to suppress statements made upon interrogation, and request to be released pending trial.
II. Legal Standard
A. Reports and recommendations
This court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court is not required to conduct "any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
B. Reconsideration and LR 3-1 objections
A district judge "may reconsider any pretrial matter [adjudicated by the magistrate judge]... where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); LR IB 3-1(a). The district judge may "affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the ruling made by the magistrate judge." LR IB 3-1(b). Under the "clearly erroneous" standard, the magistrate judge's ruling must be accepted unless, after a review of the record, the court is "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Silverman , 861 F.2d 571, 576-77 (9th Cir.1998).
Because defendant Frederick Williams is proceeding in pro se , his filings are numerous and difficult to follow. The court has done its best to identify the salient points and will address each motion and argument in the manner most convenient for it.
A. Report and recommendation on defendant Williams' motion to suppress the search warrant
The magistrate judge issued two reports recommending that Williams' motions to suppress the search warrant be denied. (Docs. # 120, 203). Williams has objected to the reports and recommendations (docs. # 170, 214) and the government has responded (docs. # 179, 232).
The motions object to the sufficiency of the warrant issued for Soledad Way. Williams first argues that probable cause did not exist to justify the issuance of the warrant (doc. # 92) and later that the warrant was overbroad and was executed in violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 (doc. # 175). Each argument is addressed in turn.
I. Probable cause
Williams contests whether there was probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found at the Soledad Way residence. In particular, Williams argues that Agent Roland set forth facts indicating that he had knowledge that Williams had been involved in prior crimes; however that his affidavit is insufficient to establish that specific objects connected to those particular crimes would be located at Soledad Way. Williams' primary contention is ...