USA v. ROSS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:13-cr-158-JAW
)
KEVIN LEE ROSS, )
)
Defendant )
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
On October 25, 2013, Defendant Kevin Lee Ross filed a motion to suppress all
statements he made to investigating officers on July 26, 2011. (Motion, ECF No. 18.) The
United States initially opposed the motion (Response, ECF No. 23) and the Court referred the
motion for hearing, report, and recommendation. Today, the United States filed a notice
withdrawing its opposition to the motion to suppress. (ECF No. 29.) Accordingly, I recommend
that the Court grant Ross’s motion to suppress1 and suppress all statements he provided to law
enforcement on July 26, 2011, from use by the Government in its case in chief. Nothing in the
order granting suppression would prevent the Government from using the statement for
impeachment purposes should the defendant choose to testify at trial.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought,
together with a supporting memorandum, and request for oral argument before the
1 The issue raised by the motion was whether or not the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda.
Based upon the prehearing submission of exhibits and argument by counsel, there appeared to be a close question
regarding the defendant’s custodial status and his decision to remain silent at least until he consulted with counsel.
The merits of the motion were not subject to determination without an evidentiary hearing. The Government’s
decision not to use the statements renders that process unnecessary.
Case 1:13-cr-00158-LEW Document 30 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
district judge, if any is sought, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a
copy thereof. A responsive memorandum and any request for oral argument
before the district judge shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of
the objection.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de
novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court's order.
/s/ Margaret J. Kravchuk
U.S. Magistrate Judge
December 16, 2013
Case 1:13-cr-00158-LEW Document 30 Filed 12/16/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>