United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDAITON AND DENYING
MOTION TO SUPRESS
L. MALONEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Lee Blomquist filed a motion to suppress. (ECF No. 27.) The
magistrate judge held a hearing, considered additional
briefs, and issued a report recommending the motion be
denied. (ECF No. 41.) Defendant filed objections. (ECF No.
being served with a report and recommendation (R&R)
issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to
file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of
the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Only those objections
that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the
statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th
Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
advances two objections. First, Defendant argues the
Government did not meet its burden to show that he consented
to a search. Second, Defendant argues the exclusionary rule
magistrate judge recommends finding that Defendant consented
to the search. Defendant objects to this recommendation.
Defendant's objection is OVERRULED.
the totality of the circumstances, Defendant voluntarily
consented to the search of the chicken coop. The evidence
presented at the hearing establishes that, upon arrest,
Defendant insisted that his grow operation was in compliance
with Michigan law and wanted to show the officers that he was
in compliance. Among his efforts, Defendant voluntarily gave
the officers a tour of the chicken coop, where the marijuana
plants were growing. See, e.g., Hoover v. Beto, 467
F.2d 516, 521 (5th Cir. 1972) ("Hoover voluntarily
consented to and invited the search. That consent was neither
coerced nor compelled by the search warrant."). The
record does not support the conclusion that Defendant merely
acquiesced to the authority of the search warrant. Defendant
was aware he was under arrest. It is not clear that Defendant
was aware that the officers had a search warrant. In fact,
the record does not indicate when, or even if, the officers
ever informed Defendant that they had a search warrant before
he voluntarily took the officers to the chicken coop.
has not demonstrated that the officers violated his Fourth
Amendment rights before he took the officers to the chicken
coop. The record establishes that the officers had entered
Norman Blomquist's property and were securing it when
Defendant walked out of the chicken coop, which was on John
Blomquist's property. The record does not establish
exactly where the officers were located when Defendant
appeared. The record does not establish whether the officers
had left Norman Blomquist's property and were on John
Blomquist's property when Defendant walked out of the
chicken coop. The record does establish that the officers
arrested Defendant when he was outside of the chicken coop.
magistrate judge recommends finding that an exception to the
exclusionary rule applies. Defendant objects to this
recommendation. Defendant's objection is OVERRULED.
magistrate judge concluded that Lieutenant Dixon relied on
inaccurate public records when describing the property to be
searched. (R&R at 15 PageID.108.) Lieutenant
Dixon testified that he obtained the legal description of the
property to be searched from the equalization department in
the county courthouse. (ECF No. 45 Hrg. Trans. at 46
PageID.160.) Dixon also drove by the property and took
pictures. (Id.) Lieutenant Dixon testified that the
chicken coop appeared to be part of Norman Blomquist's
property. (Id. at 55 PageID.169.) The coop was north
of the house and the coop and other buildings were all part
of a large, maintained back yard. (Id.)
Four for the Government was the document Dixon received from
the equalization department. (Id.) The exhibit is a
photocopy of the assessment roll for Felch Township and the
document lists three properties owned by Norman Blomquist.
(Id. at 77 PageID.191.) The pictures of the property
that were on file with the equalization department in April
2017 inaccurately showed the chicken coop as being part of
Norman Blomquist's property. (Id. at 92-93
PageID.206-07.) The pictures were taken by the assessor, and
would have been shared with the equalization department and
would have been part of the tax records for the property.
(Id. at 103 PageID.217.) At the hearing, the Felch
Township Assessor testified that, based on the records ...