IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) No. 2:14-CR-102

)

CARL TAYLOR, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the: (1) Motion to Suppress

Tangible Evidence, filed by Defendant, Carl Taylor, on July 7, 2015

(DE #18); and (2) Motion to Suppress Statements, filed by

Defendant, Carl Taylor, on July 7, 2015 (DE #19). For the reasons

set forth below, both motions (DE ##18 and 19) are DENIED as

untimely. 

On October 16, 2014, Taylor was charged via indictment with a

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), felon in possession of a

firearm. On March 12, 2015, Defendant was arraigned and an order

was entered requiring all pretrial motions to be filed by April 9,

2015. (DE #9.) According to the Government, on March 17, 2015,

the Government turned over Rule 16 discovery, including police

reports and the recorded interview of Carl Taylor.

On April 27, 2015, Taylor moved for a continuance of the trial

and final pretrial conference, but did not request any extension of
time to file pretrial motions. (DE #11.) Indeed, no request for

more time to file pretrial motions was ever submitted.

On June 26, 2015, the Government filed a plea agreement signed

by Taylor. (DE #13.) On July 1, 2015, a change of plea hearing

began before this Court, but was interrupted due to technical

difficulties. On July 2, 2015, at Defendant’s request, a

continuance was granted until July 13, 2015, for the change of plea

hearing. (DE #16.) On July 7, 2015, Taylor filed the instant

motion to suppress tangible evidence (DE #18), and a motion to

suppress statements (DE #19). 

The motions to suppress are untimely. Magistrate Judge Cherry

ordered all pretrial motions to be filed by April 9, 2015. This

deadline passed 89 days before the filing of the instant motions to

suppress. The Government gave discovery to Defendant on March 17,

2015, thus he has been aware of the facts of this case for a long

time. Defendant did not seek an extension of time in which to file

a motion to suppress, or seek leave to file late motions. 

If a defendant wishes to purse a motion to suppress, he must

do so before trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(C). Moreover, the

Court may set a deadline for the parties to make pretrial motions. 

Rule 12(c)(1). “If a party does not meet the deadline for making

a Rule 12(b)(3) motion, the motion is untimely. But a court may

consider the defense, objection, or request if the party shows good

cause.” Rule 12(c)(2). Here, Defendant offered no reason, much

2
less good cause, for the extremely late filings of the instant

motions to suppress. As such, the motions to suppress are denied

as untimely. See, e.g., United States v. Angle, 234 F.3d 326, 333

(7th Cir. 2000) (upholding the district court’s denial of motion to

suppress as untimely, finding “court did not abuse its discretion

in denying [defendant’s] suppress motion for untimeliness.”);

United States v. Lauderdale, No. 07-cr-30052-MJR, 2007 WL 3231469,

at *1 (S.D. Ill. 2007) (denying motion to suppress when two motions

to suppress filed 24 days late and no showing of good cause was

made).1

DATED: July 15, 2015 /s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United States District Court

1 The Court has reviewed the submissions by the parties, and

notes that even if the motions to suppress were considered on

their merits, they would still fail. 

3