Opinion ID: 6500908
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Timing of Olson’s Admission

Text: Olson asks us to disturb the district court’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s factual finding regarding the timing of his admission. Specifically, Olson claims he first told officers he was a felon only after they placed him under arrest. Accepting Olson’s version of events calls into question the probable cause supporting his arrest for possession of a gun as a felon. Resolving a motion to suppress involves a highly fact-specific inquiry. Richmond, 924 F.3d at 410–11. Here, the magistrate judge enjoyed the benefit of observing witness de- meanor and listening to live testimony during the suppression hearing. Id. Consequently, as the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s factual findings, we review the magis- trate judge’s factual findings and credibility determinations for clear error. United States v. Biggs, 491 F.3d 616, 621 (7th Cir. 2007). Clear error warrants reversal only where we are “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made,” such as where a magistrate judge “credited exceed- ingly improbable testimony.” United States v. Wendt, 465 F.3d 814, 816 (7th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). We must “accept the evidence unless it is contrary to the laws of 16 No. 21-2128 nature[] or is so inconsistent or improbable on its face that no reasonable factfinder could accept it.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “[D]eterminations of witness credibility can virtually never be clear error.” Biggs, 491 F.3d at 621 (internal quotations omitted). At root, Olson asks us to overturn the magistrate judge’s credibility determination for not one but all three officers. On this record, we cannot conclude the magistrate judge clearly erred in crediting the officers’ suppression hearing testimony. The magistrate judge was justifiably concerned with the dis- crepancy between the officers’ written reports and their subsequent testimony, a discrepancy which favored the government’s position. Hamilton and Gatdula’s contemporaneous reports did not mention any pre-arrest admission. Marzullo’s report indicated Olson only admitted he was a felon after the officers placed him under arrest. At the suppression hearing, however, all three officers testified their written reports were incomplete or incorrect and that Olson said he was a felon twice with the first admission occurring pre-arrest. Any omissions or inaccuracies in the officers’ contemporaneous reports are plausibly explained by their sleep deprivation and stress. First, all three officers characterized the weekend of May 30–31, 2020, as one of unprecedented stress. Hamilton in particular described the experience as one of the “most stressful and high impact” of his 14-year career. Second, each of the officers wrote their reports in the early hours of June 1, 2020, while suffering extreme sleep deprivation. Gatdula was functioning on between two and three hours of sleep when he wrote his report and was “extremely exhausted.” Marzullo wrote his report after working a 14-hour shift which was “well outside [his] normal hours of No. 21-2128 17 operation.” Third, none of the officers reviewed their reports immediately after writing them. Instead, each affirmed the truth and accuracy of their suppression hearing testimony. Fourth and finally, the officers’ entire interaction with Olson unfolded extremely quickly. Approximately 90 seconds elapsed between the officers’ decision to approach Olson and Hamilton’s radio call to the MPD command post indicating Olson was under arrest. Under these conditions, it does not strain credulity to imagine the officers inadvertently misstated the sequence of events or omitted key details in their written reports. We will not second-guess the magistrate judge’s credibility determination; there is no clear error here.