United States v. Pineiro, 564 F.Supp.3d 860

Defendant Shearn Joshua moved to suppress, arguing his detention and the subsequent seizure/search of his vehicle were unlawful.
The Government argued detention was permissible as incident to executing a search warrant, that officers had probable cause to arrest Joshua for marijuana possession, and that a K-9 alerted to drugs giving probable cause to search the vehicle.
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Smith; an evidentiary hearing was held on June 28, 2021, and Magistrate Judge Smith issued a Final Report and Recommendation granting the suppression motion.
The Government objected to factual findings concerning officers’ knowledge and to the magistrate’s finding that the Government failed to show a lack of causal connection between the K-9’s interior and exterior alerts.
The district court reviewed the objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), declined to sustain the Government’s objections, adopted the R&R, and granted suppression.
The court ordered suppression of: (1) items seized from Joshua at the time of his arrest on Feb. 18, 2021; and (2) items found inside the Porsche associated with Joshua. The order was entered Sept. 30, 2021.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the detention permissible as incident to execution of a search warrant?	Detention lawful as incident to warrant execution.	Detention was unlawful and not justified by the warrant.	Detention unlawful; suppression warranted.
Was there probable cause to arrest Joshua for marijuana possession?	Officers had probable cause to arrest for possession.	No probable cause existed for arrest.	No probable cause; arrest-related evidence suppressed.
Did the K-9 alert provide probable cause to search the vehicle?	Positive K-9 alert (interior and exterior) established probable cause to search.	K-9 alerts lacked sufficient causal connection and did not establish probable cause.	Government failed to prove causal link; K-9 alerts insufficient to justify the search.
Should the district court adopt the magistrate judge’s R&R despite Government objections?	Objected to magistrate’s factual findings and probable-cause conclusion.	R&R findings and recommendation should be adopted.	Court reviewed objections and adopted the R&R in full.

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (district court need not conduct de novo review of magistrate findings to which parties do not object)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (Congress did not intend mandatory de novo review of magistrate judge reports when no objections are filed)