United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Southwestern Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE.
the Court is Defendant James Loyd Wainright's Motion to
Suppress. (Doc. 21.) United States Magistrate Judge David P.
Rush held a hearing on the Motion to Suppress and issued a
Report and Recommendation that the motion be denied. (Doc.
31, Tr.; Doc. 32.) Defendant then filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 35.) After careful
consideration, and for the reasons stated below, the Court
OVERRULES Defendant's objections to the
Report and Recommendation; ADOPTS all of the
Report and Recommendation except its analysis of the
independent source doctrine; and DENIES the
motion to suppress.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b)(3), “[a]
district judge must consider de novo any objection to a
magistrate judge's recommendation.” The Court
“may 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).
first objects to Judge Rush's conclusion that the police
had probable cause to conduct a limited search of his car to
retrieve and secure his cell phone while police sought a
warrant to search the phone's contents. It is
well-established that police do not need a warrant to search
an automobile, only probable cause. United States v.
Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 807-08 (1982). The following
evidence supported probable cause to target the phone as
containing evidence of a crime, and thus to search the car
where Defendant told them it was located:
• A white man driving a silver passenger car stopped
near Hatten Park in Webb City, Missouri and asked C.D. (a
fifteen-year-old boy) if he knew where “D.P.”
lived. After leaving for a short time, the man came back and
asked if C.D. wanted to “make a couple hundred
• A neighbor corroborated hearing the man offer C.D.
“a couple hundred bucks” and provided a
description that matched Defendant (white male, approximately
thirty years old, short in stature, heavy-set, with brownish
• A few weeks later, a man who fit essentially the same
description approached D.N. (a fifteen-year-old boy) and M.S.
(a thirteen-year-old boy) in a silver four-door passenger car
with a spoiler on the back. He offered them money for sex,
showed them $200 cash, and instructed them to meet him in the
park to engage in sexual acts. According to D.N., the man
told them he would record them with a video camera and upload
the video to his YouTube channel.
• Approximately a month-and-a-half after that, the same
man in the same car approached the two boys again and asked
if they wanted to make some money. The boys refused, and the
man drove away very fast when D.N. attempted to take a
picture of him with his cell phone. The boys also attempted
to take down the license plate number as
• This license plate number belonged to a vehicle that
did not match the description of the vehicle given to police,
so they ran plate number KN6M3G, which checked back to a
silver Mazda 6 owned by Defendant.
• Defendant and his license photo matched the
description in all three police reports.
• D.N. positively identified Defendant in a photo
• Police observed a 2008 Silver Mazda 6 passenger car
with a spoiler on the trunk bearing license plate number
KN6M3G in Defendant's driveway.
• D.N. positively identified this vehicle as the same
car that had approached him and ...