United States v. Rice

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HANNIE EUGENE RICE, Defendant.

No. 8:23-CR-188

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

September 18, 2024

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Brian C. Buescher United States District Judge

The Government has charged defendant Hannie Eugene Rice with possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Filing 1. This charge stems from a search of the defendant's residence at 214 North Thomas Avenue Oakland, Nebraska, conducted by law enforcement pursuant to a search warrant on May 6, 2023. During the search, law enforcement uncovered methamphetamine. The defendant filed a Motion to Suppress, Filing 21, that the United States Magistrate Judge recommended be denied, Filing 51. Presently before the Court are the defendant's objections to the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation. Filing 52. The defendant contends that suppression is appropriate because the search warrant was insufficiently particularized. Filing 53. Specifically, the defendant argues that the warrant failed to adequately identify the defendant's apartment within the building at 214 North Thomas Avenue. Filing 53. For the reasons stated below, after reviewing the matters de novo, the defendant's objections are overruled, the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation are accepted, and the Motion to Suppress is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

The magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation discusses the facts pertinent to the defendant's Motion in greater detail. See Filing 52 at 1-8. The following background information provides context for the Court's ruling on the defendant's objections.^[1] Deputy Joshua Townsend, the Burt County Sherriff's Department officer who was the lead investigator into the case against the defendant, testified at the Motion to Suppress hearing. Filing 46 at 8. Deputy Townsend learned from informants that the defendant was involved in distributing methamphetamine. Filing 46 at 8. Deputy Townsend further learned that the defendant obtained methamphetamine from California via mailed packages to the residence at 214 North Thomas Avenue, Oakland, Nebraska. Filing 46 at 9.

Deputy Townsend investigated the building at 214 North Thomas Avenue and described it as containing two stories, a basement, and three entrances. Filing 46 at 10. Deputy Townsend stated that he believed the building to be a single-family house. Filing 46 at 10. To verify this belief prior to seeking the search warrant, Deputy Townsend contacted the City of Oakland, Nebraska, which notified him that the property only generated one electric bill and one water bill, and the police department, which provided him with a landlord form indicating that the property was a single-family house. Filing 46 at 10-16. Deputy Townsend also checked the defendant's DMV record, which listed the defendant's address as simply “214 North Thomas Avenue.” Filing 46 at 16. This was the same address provided to the DMV by all residents of the house, as none of the residents specified an apartment number within the building. Filing 46 at 16-17. In addition, Deputy Townsend pulled the county assessor's record of the property, which indicated that the building was classified as a single-family house. Filing 46 at 19. Finally, it was also known to Deputy Townsend at the time he applied for the search warrant that the defendant was related to the other individuals living in the building. Filing 46 at 20.

Mr. Dale Jones, the owner of the residence at 214 North Thomas Avenue, also testified at the hearing to provide more information about the building. Filing 46 at 55. Mr. Jones described the property as “a large five-bedroom house upstairs” and a “basement apartment [with] one bedroom [and] a full kitchen.” Filing 46 at 57. Mr. Jones explained that “the top part is rented separate from the . . . basement part. It's two separate places.” Filing 46 at 57. Mr. Jones stated that the units are separated by “a door and a stairway that can go down in the basement” and that the door “locks on both sides,” meaning the occupants of either unit can elect to lock the door. Filing 46 at 57. In May 2023, the defendant had a lease with Mr. Jones for the basement apartment, and there was a separate lease pertaining to the top unit. Filing 46 at 60. Moreover, the property has two mailboxes-one for each unit-but there are no “markings on the exterior of the building designating separate apartments.” Filing 46 at 65. Further, about a decade ago, Mr. Jones converted what was an unfinished basement into the basement apartment, but he has not “submitted anything to any public agency that [the property] is more than a single-family home.” Filing 46 at 66.

On May 5, 2023, upon belief that the property was being used to distribute methamphetamine,^[2] Deputy Townsend applied for and received a search warrant for “214 N Thomas Ave, Oakland, Nebraska, 68045 LEGAL ADDRESS: L7 & 8 BLK7 OAKLAND, out buildings, vehicles associated with the property, [and] any persons found on the property or that arrive at the property” to search for “controlled substances as listed in Neb Rev. 28-405 (Reissue 1995), drug money, drug paraphernalia, homemade or otherwise; packaging material and containers used to store, distribute, and conceal controlled substances; notes, receipts, records, documents, ledgers of drug transactions and documents of venue; electronic devices and/or documentary evidence, electronic or otherwise, used to maintain records of drug transactions and concealment of controlled substances.” Filing 42-1 (Exhibit 1).

On May 6, 2023, Deputy Townsend and other officers executed the search warrant at 214 North Thomas Avenue. Filing 46 at 21. Deputy Townsend entered the building through the front door, and other officers entered through the other two exterior doors. Filing 46 at 21. Deputy Townsend proceeded through the main level and entered the basement, where he found and arrested the defendant. Filing 46 at 22. At no point did Deputy Townsend have to open any doors to enter the basement from the main level of the house. Filing 46 at 22. Various items of contraband including methamphetamine were found in both the main level and the basement of the house. Filing 46 at 23-24. Law enforcement also recovered mail addressed to the defendant “at 214 North Thomas Avenue” without specifying any particular apartment within the building at that address. Filing 46 at 24.

B. Procedural Background

The defendant was indicted on August 22, 2023, for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Filing 1. The defendant filed a Motion to Suppress on November 29, 2023. Filing 21. The magistrate judge held a suppression hearing on May 9, 2024, Filing 41 (Text Order), and issued a Findings and Recommendation that the motion be denied on July 31, 2024, Filing 92. The defendant filed an objection on August 13, 2024, Filing 52, to which the Government responded on August 27, 2024, Filing 54. The defendant objects to the magistrate judge's finding “that the search warrant was not invalid for failing to specify a specific living unit within the residence at 214 North Thomas Avenue.” Filing 52 at 1 (¶ 2). The defendant further objects, presumably as an alternative argument, that “[o]fficers knew or should have known upon their entrance onto 214 North Thomas Avenue, that it consisted of a multi-unit dwelling. Officers were required to discontinue their search and seek a more particularized warrant.” Filing 52 at 1 (¶ 3).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Applicable Standards

Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court “must consider de novo any objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). When a party objects to a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations, “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions . . . to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Gonzales-Perez v. Harper, 241 F.3d 633, 636 (8th Cir. 2001) (“When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court is required to make a de novo review of the record related to the objections[.]”). The reviewing district court judge is free to “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If desired, a reviewing district court judge may “receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. Moreover, a party's failure to object in accordance with Rule 59 “waives a party's right to review.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2); United States v. Merrett, 9 F.4th 713, 716 (8th Cir. 2021) (noting that the defendant “did not object to the magistrate judge's order denying his motion, and his failure to object waives his right to review under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(a)”), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 815 (2022); see also United States v. Chen, No. CR 21-250 (JRT/TNL), 2023 WL 1466503, at *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 2, 2023) (quoting Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F.Supp.3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015)).

Under de novo review, a reviewing court “makes its own determinations of disputed issues and does not decide whether the magistrate[ ] [judge's] proposed findings are clearly erroneous.” Branch v. Martin, 886 F.2d 1043, 1046 (8th Cir. 1989). De novo review is non-deferential and requires an independent review of the entire matter. See Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell 499 U.S. 225, 238 (1991) (“When de novo review is compelled, no form of appellate deference is acceptable.”); United States v. Backer, 362 F.3d 504, 508 (8th Cir. 2004) (“‘De novo' is a Latin term literally meaning ‘as new.' Our review is independent...