UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:16-CR-12-TLS

)

ANTONIO CORTEZ HARRIS )

ORDER

On February 9, 2016, two Fort Wayne Police Department officers responded to a

dispatch for a party armed at a particular address in Fort Wayne. This led to the arrest and search

of Antonio Cortez Harris, who was carrying a handgun and drugs. On March 23, 2016, a grand

jury indicted the Defendant for possession of heroin with intent to distribute, possession of a

firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

On June 17, 2016, the Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence [ECF No. 19], alleging

that the search and seizure conducted on February 9, 2016, was unlawful. Upon referral from this

Court, Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins held an evidentiary hearing on August 11, 2016,

received post-hearing briefing, and issued a Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 33],

recommending that the Court deny the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)–(B), a magistrate judge does not have authority to issue

a final order on a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case. Instead, the magistrate judge

submits proposed findings of fact and recommendations to the district court. If a party files a

timely objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, § 636(b)(1) provides that

the district judge is to make a de novo determination of those portions of the

report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

made. The court may accept, reject, modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge also may receive

further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

The time for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation has passed, and no objections
have been filed. Portions of a recommendation to which no party objects are reviewed for clear

error. Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). 

Officer Ron Partridge testified at the evidentiary hearing. The Magistrate Judge found his

uncontested testimony to be entirely credible, and neither party has objected to this assessment

or to the Magistrate Judge’s characterization of the testimony. The Court adopts the Magistrate

Judge’s findings of fact regarding the events of February 9, 2016. Finding no clear error, the

Court also adopts, in full, the Magistrate Judge’s detailed analysis of the law that is applicable to

911 emergency calls by an eyewitness, and the conclusion that the caller’s information, in this

case, gave the officers the necessary reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant. Therefore, the

Court adopts the recommendation to deny the Motion to Suppress Evidence on grounds that the

officers did not violate the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, either during the investigatory

stop or the resulting protective pat-down, as both were conducted within the parameters of Terry

v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [ECF

No. 33], and DENIES the Motion to Suppress Evidence [ECF No. 19] for the reasons set forth

by the Magistrate Judge. A separate scheduling order will be issued.

SO ORDERED on January 11, 2017.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2