United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
KING, MAGISTRATE JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
matter is before the Court upon the motion of Defendant
Carlos Catalan to join Defendant Ismael Gonzalez' motion
to suppress, to which the United States responded in
opposition. (Docket # 266, 268). The Court referred the
matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for report and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. (Docket #
undersigned construed Catalan's motion as an independent
motion to suppress (not dependent on whether Gonzalez is
entitled to suppression) and ordered further briefing. (Docket #
274). Catalan and the United States filed supplemental
briefs. (Dockets # 276, 278). The matter is ripe for
Catalan lacks standing to object to the search, the
RECOMMENDATION will be that the Court DENY Catalan's
motion to join Defendant Gonzalez' motion to suppress
(Docket # 266).
obtained a warrant to search an auto repair shop located at
6309 Strawberry Lane in Louisville, Kentucky, which was the
target of a drug-trafficking investigation. (Docket # 278, p.
1). The warrant authorized search of the shop's building
and grounds. (Docket # 255, p. 1). Authorities executed the
warrant on July 2, 2016, and the search resulted in discovery
of incriminating cocaine and heroin in a truck parked on the
shop's grounds. (Docket# 259, p. 1).
filed a motion to suppress (Docket # 255), and the United
States responded in opposition (Docket # 259). The Court
referred the matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for
report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
(Docket # 261). The undersigned submitted a prior report
recommending denial of Gonzalez' motion to suppress on
standing grounds. (Docket # 271).
prior report recommending denial of Gonzalez' motion to
suppress inadvertently and erroneously also recommended
denial of Catalan's motion to join Gonzalez' motion.
(See Report at Docket # 271, p. 4 referring to
Catalan's motion at Docket # 266). The undersigned
intended to analyze Gonzalez' motion and Catalan's
motion separately. Because the error has resulted in
confusion, the undersigned shall (on today's date): 1)
withdraw the prior report recommending denial of
Gonzalez' motion (Docket # 271); 2) submit a new report
recommending denial of Gonzalez' motion; and 3) submit
the present report recommending denial of Catalan's
facts surrounding the search
recitation of the facts surrounding the July 2, 2016 search
at 6309 Strawberry Lane given by Catalan and the United
States are consistent. However, the United States adds
relevant facts. The United States submitted a sworn statement
from Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Jennifer Traud to
the effect that Defendant Oscar Argueta owned the truck that
contained the incriminating drugs. (Docket # 268, p. 4).
Additionally, the United States submitted a disc marked
“aerial surveillance July 2, 2016, ” which
supports its recitation of the facts. (Docket # 277).
According to the United States, the aerial surveillance
footage was provided to the Defendants in discovery. (Docket
# 276, p. 2).
United States argues that Catalan lacks standing to object to
the search. (Docket # 276). Because Catalan carries the
burden of proof on the issue of standing, United States
v. Mathis, 738 F.3d 719, 729 (6th Cir. 2013), and
because the United States has submitted evidence in support
of its recitation of the facts going beyond mere argument,
this report will rely on the additional, relevant facts given
by the United States.
to Catalan, Catalan “operated an auto repair shop on
the [6309 Strawberry Lane] [p]roperty.” (Docket # 278,
p. 2). “As such, it was part of his
business to have vehicles brought to his property for the
purposes of having repairs performed on those
vehicles.” (Id.). “Catalan was expecting
a tractor-trailer that needed to have its brakes
repaired.” (Id.). At the time of the search,
Argueta had just arrived with his truck, which “was
parked on the [shop's] property.” (Id. at
to the United States, the disk marked “aerial
surveillance July 2, 2016” (Docket # 277) shows that
law enforcement officers entered the property through an open
gate and “approached Argueta's truck [only] seconds
after [Argueta had] arrived” on the property. (Docket #
276, p. 2). “Argueta was alone in his truck, with the
engine still running and did not exit the truck before law
enforcement arrived.” (Id.). “Argueta
consented to the search of his truck.” (Id.).
“Argueta told the agents where the drugs were hidden in
the driver's truck compartment.”
(Id.). The surveillance video shows “an
open gate to the lane alongside the auto shop, which remained
open at the time law enforcement approached.”
standards governing standing ...