Based on the testimony at the hearing held on June 7, 2011, and to a preponderanceof the evidence, the court finds the operative facts as follows:
Deputy United States Marshal Ryan Karle (“Deputy Karle”) participated in thefugitive hunt for Defendant. Tr. (Doc. #99) at 3. As part of the fugitive hunt, Deputy Karle placed Dale Anthony Ervin (“Anthony Ervin”), Defendant’s son, under surveillance. On
or around March 17, 2011, Rick Clemmons, a member of the Houston County Sheriff’soffice, and members of an arrest team, temporarily detained Anthony Ervin, who they believed was meeting with Monty Ervin in the parking lot of a Ruby Tuesday’s restaurant inDothan Alabama.
. at 4. Deputy Karle was in Auburn, Alabama at the time of AnthonyErvin’s detainment, remotely directing the arrest team.
. at 5. Anthony Ervin was incustody for approximately fifteen minutes while the arrest team determined that Monty Ervinwas not at the scene.
. at 4. Anthony Ervin was then informed that he was not under arrest.
. One of the investigators at the scene placed Anthony Ervin on the phone with DeputyKarle, who explained that he was a Deputy United States Marshal and that there was a
The Court reaches findings of fact at a suppression hearing based on a preponderance of the evidence.
United States v. Beechum
, 582 F.2d 898, 913 n.16 (5th Cir. 1978) (citing
Lego v. Twomey
, 404 U.S. 477, 489(1972)).Dale Anthony Ervin is commonly known as Anthony Ervin.
. at 3.
There is inconsistency between the Government’s Brief, the hearing testimony, and Defendant’s Brief,
regarding Anthony Ervin’s relationship with Defendant. For the purposes of this Recommendation, the courtwill rely on Defendant’s description of Anthony Ervin as Defendant’s son.
Case 1:11-cr-00007-MHT -WC Document 117 Filed 08/17/11 Page 2 of 13