Decision and Order — United States v. Rech (Dkt. 78, W.D.N.Y.)

Summary

A decision and order of U.S. District Judge Charles J. Siragusa in United States v. Michael Rech, 21-CR-6080 CJS/MWP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, dated and filed June 2, 2022 as Document 78. The case had been referred to Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(B). The defendant's amended omnibus motion of October 24, 2021 (ECF No. 30) sought suppression of tangible evidence on the ground that the search warrant was invalid under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), and a February 22, 2022 supplemental motion also sought suppression of statements under the Fifth Amendment. The court denies both the application to suppress tangible evidence and the application to suppress statements.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 6:21-cr-06080-CJS-MWP Document 78 Filed 06/02/22 Page 1 of 4




                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


__________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Plaintiff

                                                             DECISION and ORDER
-vs-                                                         21-CR-6080 CJS/MWP

MICHAEL RECH

                               Defendant.
__________________________________________



       This case was referred by text order of the undersigned, entered May 13, 2021,

to Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(B), ECF

No. 32. On October 24, 2021, Defendant filed an amended omnibus motion, ECF No.

30, seeking inter alia, suppression of tangible evidence.1 Defendant maintained that

he was entitled to suppression since the tangible evidence at issue was obtained by

way of a search warrant that was invalid as a matter of law pursuant to Franks v.

Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). Subsequently, on February 22, 2022, Defendant filed

a supplemental motion to suppress, including an affidavit to establishing standing with

respect to his prior application to suppress physical evidence, and additionally seeking

to suppress statements, arguing that they were acquired in violation of his Fifth

Amendment rights against self-incrimination.

       1
          As Magistrate Judge Payson noted, originally Defendant sought suppression of certain
seized items on the basis that items seized were outside the scope of the warrant. However, he
withdrew that portion of his application based upon the government’s representation that it would
not seek to introduce those items into evidence.

     Case 6:21-cr-06080-CJS-MWP Document 78 Filed 06/02/22 Page 2 of 4




      On March 1, 2022, ECF No. 58, an evidentiary hearing was held regarding

Defendant’s applications to suppress tangible evidence and statements. On March 29,

2022, Magistrate Judge Payson filed a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”), ECF

No. 63 recommending that Defendant’s application to suppress tangible evidence and

for a Franks hearing be denied. Magistrate Judge Payson also recommended in her R.

& R. that Defendant’s application to suppress statements be denied. After being

granted an extension, ECF No. 66, Defendant timely filed his “Objection to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Concerning Defendants’ Motion to

Suppress Physical Evidence and to Suppress Statements,” May 3, 2022, ECF No. 71.

Subsequently, by letter order filed on May 9, 2022, ECF No. 73, the Court granted the

government’s request to file a response to Defendant’s objection, giving the government

until May 20, 2022, to file responding papers. On May 20, 2022, the government filed

its response, ECF No. 77.

      In objecting to the R. & R. as to tangible evidence, Defendant argues that:

      Upon information and belief, the supporting affidavit by the agents is
      either intentionally false and/or a reckless and negligent disregard of
      and/or indifference to an official duty to exercise due care in avoiding
      material disregard of and/or indifference to an official duty to exercise due
      care in avoiding material misstatements of fact. Said false statements
      were necessary and intended to mislead the issuing court to believe
      probable cause existed. Franks v. Delaware, 438 US 154 (1978). Mr. Rech
      specifically contends the allegations contained within the search warrant
      application are void of any factual reference to the Defendant or his
      alleged involvement in any criminal activity.




                                      Page 2 of 4

     Case 6:21-cr-06080-CJS-MWP Document 78 Filed 06/02/22 Page 3 of 4




Id., p. 5. In objecting to the R. & R. as to statements, Defendant states that “[a]

hearing was held on this matter, and the defense did not offer any further submissions

after the hearing. We rely on the record of the hearing and move to suppress any

statements obtained by law enforcement agents.” Id., pp. 7–8.

      Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo

determination of those portions of the R. & R. to which objections have been made.

Upon a de novo review of the R. & R., including a review of the transcript of the

evidentiary hearing held on March 1, 2022, ECF No. 60, as well as exhibits received

into evidence, the Court accepts Magistrate Judge Payson’s proposed findings and

recommendation. In that regard, the Court notes that :

        In conducting its de novo review, the district court must give
        appropriate deference to the credibility determinations made by the
        magistrate judge who conducted an evidentiary hearing and observed
        the witness testimony. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667,
        675–76 (1980) (district court is not required to rehear witness
        testimony when accepting a magistrate judge’s credibility findings);
        Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401, 407 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that
        “without an evidentiary hearing, the District Court could not reject
        the Magistrate Judge’s proposed credibility finding”); United States v.
        Lawson, 961 F. Supp. 2d 496, 499 (W.D.N.Y. 2013) (“The Second
        Circuit has instructed that where a Magistrate Judge conducts an
        evidentiary hearing and makes credibility findings on disputed issues
        of fact, the district court will ordinarily accept those credibility
        findings.”); United States v. Preston, 635 F. Supp. 2d 267, 269
        (W.D.N.Y. 2009)

United States v. Guobadia, 2019 WL 1593922, at *2–3 (W.D.N.Y. 2019); See also

United States v. Preston, 635 Fed. Supp. 2d 267 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).




                                     Page 3 of 4

     Case 6:21-cr-06080-CJS-MWP Document 78 Filed 06/02/22 Page 4 of 4




       Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Payson’s R. & R.,

ECF No. 63, Defendant’s application to suppress tangible evidence, ECF No. 30

and ECF No. 56, as well as his application to suppress statements, ECF No. 56, are

both denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: Rochester, New York
       June 2, 2022

                         ENTER:


                                            /s/ Charles J. Siragusa
                                            CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA
                                            United States District Judge




                                   Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

78-decision-and-order.pdf

Size

63,869 bytes

SHA-256

4e0f5a8adaa708063eaff43d7fe0b953e5dcba14c87734c9e76f38f04001de44

Our copy

78-decision-and-order.pdf