The Honor able J. Ronni e Gr eer , Uni t ed S t at es Dist rict Judge f or the Ea stern District of * Tenne ssee, sitting by

desig nation. File Na

me: 07a0517n.06 Filed: Jul y

19, 2007 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 07-3190 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,
v. SHAWN QUI

NNEY, De fe nd a nt- Ap pe lla

nt. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E N OR TH ERN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

/

OP IN ION

Be fore : MARTI

N and Mc KEAGU E, Circuit J udg es; GREER, District J udg e. * BO YCE F. MARTI

N, J R., Circ uit Judge

. Shawn Quinney appea ls the district court’s de nial of his mot ion

to s up pr e ss, a

de c isi on larg e ly a do pti ng the re po rt a nd re c omm e nd a tio n o f a

ma g istrate judge . Be cause the district c ourt applied the incorre ct standard of re view in consider ing the repor tNo. 07-3190

United States v. Quinne

y Pag e 2

P e r

h a p s n o t s u r p r isi ng ly , th e pa

rt ie s d isp ute jus t ho w “ c on se ns ua l” thi s e nc ounte r r e a lly wa s. 1 Quinn ey t es t ified at the suppr ession hear ing that he did not fee l free to ge t out of the ag ents’ ca r during the interview . I n contra st, the ag ents testified that t h ey h ad in fac t offer ed to conduc t the interview in Quinne y ’s house in the pre sence of his mother and stepfathe r, y et Quinney “didn’t wa

nt his parents to know what was going on” and thus reque sted that the interview be conduc ted outside the house in the a g ents’ ca r. and re commendation, we now VA CA TE the dec ision of the district court and REMAND for f urther proce eding s as ar

ticulated below. I. I n th e fa ll o f 2 00 5, the Uni ted S tate s Se c re t Se rv ic e ide nti fi e d Q uinne y a s p ote nti a lly inv olv e d in

the pa ssi ng a nd

pr int ingof

c ounte rf e it U nit e d St a te s curr ency . Purs ua nt t o th e ir investigation, on September 27, 2005, Secr et Service ag ents went to his home in T oledo, Ohio and he conse nted to talk with them out s i d e. Du ring the interview , Quinney admitted to passing the 1

c ounte rf e it c ur re nc y , b ut de nie d a ny inv olv e me nt in pr int ing it. F oll ow ing thi s d isc us sio n, the a g e nts ob ta ine d Q uinne y ’s c on se nt t o search hi s u ps ta ir s b e dr oo m. T he a g e nts a lso ob ta ine d c on se nt t o

sear ch fr om Quinney ’s stepfather, Chris J acobs, w ho was the ow ner of the house. ( Quinney was nineteen y ear s old at the time of t he suppression hearing . Although it is not entirely clea r fr om the

rec ord, one c an assume that he was e ither eig hteen or nineteen at the time of his encounter s with the ag ents and their se izure of his printer.) T he sea rch of Quinney ’s bedr oom reve al ed a pr int e r/ sc a nn e r/ c op ie r m a c hin e , b ut t he a g e nts did

no t se ize it at thi s tim e . No so on e r h a d th e a g e nts depar ted, howeve r, they rec eived a radio communication from another ag ent who told them he had jus t in te rv ie we d s ome on e wh o s a id t hat Q uinne y

wa s th e “ pr int e r” of the c ur re nc y . T hu s th e a g e nts returne d to Quinney ’s home appr ox imately two hours later to re- interview him. Upon lear ning f romNo. 07-3190

United States v. Quinne

y Pag e 3 J acobs tha t Quinney

had steppe d out, th e ag ents told J acobs the y “would have to seize” the printer/sca

nner/c opier from Quinney ’s bedroom. J acobs c onsented to the seizure, a lthough he later testified that he did not fee l a s if he had much of a choice in the matter be cause the ag ents made a command, not a r equest, for the printer. T he ag ents then looked for Quinney in the neig hborhood, fo un d h im, a nd

re -i nte rv ie we d h im i n th e ir c a r. Duri ng thi s se c on d in te rv ie w, wh e n c on fr on te d w ith t h e a g e n t s ’ n e w l y a c qu i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n , Q u i n n e y a dm i t t e d t o h a v i n g p r i n t e d

c o u n t e r f e i tc u r r e n c y, both or a ll y a n d in a w r itte n s tate me n t. Q u inn e y w a s n o t M ir a n d iz e d a t e it h e r o f th e s e f

ir s t two interviews. On Octobe r 4, 2005, Quinney was interviewe d for a third time. The interview took place at the ag ents’ off

ice. Acc ording to the g overnme nt, Q uinney was Mira ndized despite being told, as he ha d b e e n d

ur ingthe tw o p ri or

int e rv ie ws , th a t he wa s n ot u nd e r a rre st. Qu inn e y

c on te sts thi s

a sse rt ion , ar g uin g that at no time duri ngthe thi rd int e rv ie w w a s h e re a d h is Miranda rig hts. During the third interview, Quinney wrote out a

one-pa g e supplement to his written statement of September 27, and he a lso identified the par ticular c ounterfe it notes that he had manuf actur ed. On Dec ember

7, 2005, Quinney

was c harg ed in a two- count indictment for: (1)

manu fa c turi ng cou nt erf

e it c ur re nc y in v iol a tio n o f 1 8 U .S. C. § 47 1, a nd (2 ) utte ri ng c ounte rf

e it

curr ency in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. The case was ref err ed to a mag istrate judg e, who he ld an evidentiar y hear ing on Quinney ’s m otion to suppress the pr inter/scanne r/copier as we ll as his oral and wr itten statements. On J une 2, 2006, the magistrate j udg e is sued a r eport re commending denial of the motion to suppress. Quinney objected to the mag istrate’s r uling, but the district cour t adopted the mag istrate’s ultimate conc lusions. Quinney then enter ed conditional plea s of g uilty to eac h countNo. 07-3190

United States v. Quinne

y Pag e 4 of the indi ctment, preserving his rig ht to appea l the denial of hi s motion to suppress. On F ebrua ry 16, 2007, Quinney was sentenc ed to a term of five months’ imprisonment, to be followed by three y e a rs ’ s up e rv ise d r e le a se . H e no w a pp e a ls. II. I t is well-settled that upon proper objection by

a par ty , a district cour

t must review de novo

a mag istrate judge ’s ruling on a motion to suppress. Se e Un ite d Stat es v . Cu rti s , 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001) (holdi ng that a magistrate judge ’s ruli ng on “dispositive” m otions, such as those for summary judgme nt or the suppre ssion of evidenc e, mus t be reviewe d de novo by the district court); 28 U. S.C. § 6 36 (b )( 1) (p ro vid ing that a dis tr ic t jud g e “ sh a ll m a ke a de no vo de te rm inatio n o f t ho se po rt ion s o f t

he [ma g istrate jud g e’s ] repo rt or sp e c if ie d p ro po se d f

ind ing s o r r e c omm e nd a tio ns to which objec tion is made” ). Quinney argues that the district c ourt, rathe r than conducting de novo revie w of the mag istrate judg e’s r eport a nd rec ommendation, revie wed it under the clea rly err oneous standard. Q uinney

believes this pane l should there fore vacate his se ntence and rema nd to the district court for further consideration under the a ppropriate standard. I n support of his argument, Quinney p o i n t s t o t h e o p en i n g t wo para g raphs in the district

c ourt ’s op ini on

a nd or de r, wh ic h r e a d in

fu ll a s f oll ow s: This action is befor e the Court on De fenda nt Shawn Quinney ’s obj ections t o the J une 6, 20 06 , Re po rt a nd Re c omm e nd a tio n of the Un ite d St a te s Ma g istra te Judg e (“ R & R” ) a nd the Go ve rn me nt’ s r e sp on se the re to. Whe n a ma g ist rate j ud ge’s fi nd ingis challeng ed in district court, the district c ourt s h all apply a “c lear ly

err oneous or c on tr a ry to l a w” sta

nd a rd of re vie w fo r “ no nd isp os iti ve ” pr e lim ina ry ma tte rs , w hil e “dispositive motions ” ar e g overne d by the de novo st an d ar d. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)( 1)(A, B ). Un ite d S tat es v . Cu rti

s , 237 F.3d 598, 603 ( 6th Cir. 2001). In th is inst anc ethe Cour t ha s c ond

uc te d a c le ar

ly e rro ne ous re v ie w. For the followingNo. 07-3190

United States v. Quinne

y Pag e 5

rea sons, the Court finds Plainti ff’ s objections are not w el l t ak en and the same a re denied. The R & R issued by Mag istrate J udg e Armstrong conclude d th at De fe n dant’s motion to s uppress e vidence (Doc . No. 9) be overr uled. Thi s Co urt h as re v ie we d th e fi ndi ng i n the R & R a nd t

he memora nda fi

le d b y the pa rti es b oth init

ial ly and in connection wi th objections to the R & R un der the standard set forth above. The Court has also revie wed a tra nscript of the he aring on the motion to suppress, which evide n ti a r y h e a r in g w a s h e ld o n F e b r u a r y 2 8 , 2 0 0 6

. A f

te r s u c h r e v ie w , th is Court wi ll a do pt in fu ll the Ma g istrate Judg e ’s R & R and ov e rr ule De fe nd a nt’ s mo tio n to su pp re ss. J oint App’x at 51-52 (e mphasis added a nd internal re fer ence s to court documents omitted). The g overnme nt do es n o t d i spute that the district court c lear ly misstated its st andar d of revie w. I t sugg ests, howeve r, that this wa s a mere slip of the pen, beca use the district court we nt on to conduct what was in eff ect a de novo revie w of the suppression issue “by re- examining the entire

rec ord.” G ov’t Br . at 9. The g overnme nt’s posi t i on appea rs to be as f

ollows: because the district

co u rt s t at ed i th ad“r ev i ew ed ” b o t h t h e m em o ra n d a fi l ed b y t h e p ar t i es b ef

o re t h e m agi s t ra t e j u d ge

a nd the tr a ns c ri pt o f t

he he a ri ng on

the mot ion

to s up pr e ss, the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s re vie w w a s n e c e ssa ri ly de novo. We find this a

rg ument unconvincing

. After all, even w hen a r eviewingcourt a pplies the more de fer ential clea

rly err oneous standard, it must still “review” the lower court proc eeding s for it to g a ug e wh e the r the low e r c ourt ’s c on c lus ion s de ri ve d fr om tho se pr oc e e din gs were c learl y

e rr on e ou s. Thus wh ile it i s po ssi blethat the district judge in this case ac tually applied one standa rd of re vie w b ut m ist a ke nly

tol d h is r e a de rs that he wa s app lying a dif fe re nt o ne , it

is e qu a lly

po ssi ble that the district judge not only wrote dow n the wrong standard but also applied that wrong standard

as we ll. I ndeed, both the de fer ential lang uag e used by the district co u rt (noting sever al times that it “ag ree s” with the mag istrate judge ’s conclusions), as well as the court’s c ursory trea tment of theNo. 07-3190

United States v. Quinne

y Pag e 6 leg al issues (one shor

t para g raph on ine vitable discover y , and one e ven shorter para g raph on a lleg ed M ira nda v i o l a t i o n s ) , t e n d

t o i n d i c a t e t h a tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtd i d w h a ti ts a i d

i tw o u l d d o : n a m e l y, conduct a clea rl y err oneous re view of the mag istrate judg e’s r eport a nd rec ommendation. And beca use the prope r standar d of re view in such a case is indisput ably de novo, se e Cur tis , 237 F.3d

a t 60 3, the dis tr ic t c ourt

a pp lie d th e inc or

re c t st a nd a rd

in r e vie wi ng th e ma g istra te jud g e ’s re po rt

. I n li g ht of thi s e rr or , w e c a nn ot s imp ly by pa ss t he dis tr ic t c ourt ’s de c isi on a nd re vie w d ir e c tly the ma g istrate jud g e ’s de nia l of Qui nn e y ’s su pp re ssi on mot ion . Rathe r, se ve ra l on -p oin t pr e c e de nts

c le a rl y ho ld t hat va c a tur

a nd re mand to the d ist

ri c t c ourt is the pr op e r a

pp ro a c h. F or

e xamp le , in Fl ou rn oy v . M ar sh all , w e state d a s f

oll ow s: [B]y failing to reviewthe mag istrate’s r eport under t h e appr opriate “ de novo” sta n d a r d , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e h a s f a il e d to f u lf il l h is d u ti e s a s a n A rti c le I I I judge

. Although Cong ress did intend the mag istrates t o lend assis tance to the overbur dened district courts when a

ppropriate , the ca

ref ully draf ted statutory standards for r eview of the mag istrate’s f

indings a re me ant to insure that t h e d i s trict courts will not a bd ic a te the ir

re sp on sib ili ty . D ue to the g re a t im po rt a nc e of

a dh e re nc e to t

he e xpre ss pr ov isi on s o f s e c tio n 63 6(b ), we VA CA TE the de c isi on of the dis tr ic t c ourt

in a ll three of t hese cases and REMAND t o the district court for a “de novo” re view of the re co rd fo r a tl ea s tt h o s e o b j ec t i o n s s et fo rt h b y

t h e p ar t i es an d

fo r f u rt h er p ro ce ed i n gs consistent here with. 842 F.2d 875, 878-79 (6th C ir. 1988). See also id. at 878 (“ [A] s the statutory desig n and leg islative his tor y of the F e de ra l Ma g istrate s A c t [c od if ie d a t 28 U. S.C. § 6 36 ] makes evi den t, Con g re ss int e nd e d th e sta

nd a rd s f or re vie w o f a

ma g istra te ’s fi nd ing s to be take n s e ri ou sly a nd a pp lie d in

a c c or d with the e xpre ss lang ua g e se t for th i n th a t st a tut e .” ); Powell v. United States , 37 F.3d 1499, 19 94 WL53 29 26 , at *1 -2 (6 th C ir . Se pt. 30 , 1 99 4) (T a ble ) ( “ I n thi s c a se , the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpre ssl y stated that the m agi strate judg e’s r eport wa s not clear ly err oneous. Ac cording ly , we va cate theNo. 07-3190

United States v. Quinne

y Pag e 7 district court’s orde r and r emand the c ase so that the di strict court may apply the prope r standar d of revie w to the mag istrate judg e’s repor t a nd rec ommendation reg arding [defendant’ s] m otion.”). Our decision in Cur tis is also consistent with the approa ch take n in Flournoy , de sp ite the fa c t th a t Cur tis pr e se nte d th is c ourt

wi th t he c on ve rs e of wha t has happene d here — i.e., in Cur tis the district court appli ed d e n o v o review to an issue in the mag istrate judg e’s r eport, whe n it should have applied clea rly err oneous re view. Se e Cur tis , 2 37 F .3 d a t 60 4 ( “ Re mand is n e c e ssa

ry to a llo w the [dis tr ic t] court to examine the mag istrate cour t’s finding s under the pr oper standa rd [of review ] . . . .”). III

. For all of the re asons stated a bove, we VA CA TE the dec ision of the di s t ri ct co u rt and REMAND fo r i ts re -e xami natio n of t he ma g istra

te jud g e ’s c on c lus ion s a s to Qu inn e y ’s mot ion to suppress, this time apply ing the proper de novo standa

rd of r eview.