D.Minn.: USDJ’s job is to adopt R&R when the proof is in dispute

When there are two views of the suppression evidence before the USMJ that are plausible, it’s not the USDJ’s job to reject the R&R but adopt it. United States v. Hull, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83877 (D.Minn. June 27, 2016)*:

Hull, as the party seeking the suppression of evidence, bears the burden of showing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated, but he has not met it. When faced with two competing narratives — one offered by Hull, and one offered by the United States — neither of which are clearly supported by the evidence offered at the suppression hearing, the Court may not merely choose to accept Hull’s narrative as true. And in the absence of evidence supporting Hull’s narrative as the one that is correct, the Court must consider that it may be the United States’ narrative that is true. Hull has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that officers did not properly detain him pursuant to their search of the cabin, then develop probable cause with the drugs and the notes in Hull’s bag, and only then arrest him. Thus, on the limited facts available, the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation was correct, and Hull’s motion must be denied.