govinfo:USCOURTS-gand-1_24-cr-00071-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DmSION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
MACKENLEY PIERRE and
JERMARI HARRIS,
Defendants.
CRIMINAL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:24-CR-0071-MHC-RDC
ORDER
Defendants Mackenley Pierre ("Pierre") and Jermari Harris ("Harris") have
been charged in a multi-count superseding indictment with co-Defendant Willie
Holmes with one count ofcarjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119(2) (Count
One), and one count of brandishing and discharging a firearm during a crime of
violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count Two).] First Superseding
Criminal Indictment [Doc. 33]. This action comes before the Court on the Non-
Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge
[Doc. 244] recommending the denial of (1) Pierre's Motions to Suppress Search
and Seizure of Apple ID Data [Does. 165, 166], Pierre's Blue iPhone [Does. 167,
1 There are additional counts in the superseding indictment that do not name either
Pierre or Harris.
Case 1:24-cr-00071-MHC-RDC     Document 276     Filed 04/13/26     Page 1 of 9
190], and the Black 2010 Infmiti G27 [Doc. 168]; and (2) Harris's Motion to
Suppress and Exclude Use of Data and Information from Defendant's Cell Phone
[Doc. 175], Supplemental Motion Requesting a Franks Hearing to Motion to
Suppress and Exclude Use of Data and Information from Defendant's Cell Phone
[Doc 176], and Unopposed Motion to Amend Motion to Suppress and Exclude Use
of Data and Information from Defendant's Cell Phone [Doc. 182].
The Order for Service of the R&R [Doc. 245] provided notice that, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), the parties were authorized to file objections
within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of that Order. Pierre filed his objections to
the R&R ("Pierre's Objs.") [Doc. 257], to which the Government has filed a
response in opposition [Doc. 272]. No objections were filed by Harris.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
In reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R, the district court "shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Parties
filing objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically
identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections
need not be considered by the district court." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d
1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548
Case 1:24-cr-00071-MHC-RDC     Document 276     Filed 04/13/26     Page 2 of 9
(11th Cir. 1988)). If there are no specific objections to factual findings made by
the Magistrate Judge, there is no requirement that those findings be reviewed de
novo. Garvev v. Vauehn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (1 1th Cir. 1993) (citations
omitted). Moreover, "a party does not state a valid objection to an R&R by merely
incorporating by reference previous filings." Hammonds v. Jackson, No. 13-CV-
711-MHS, 2015 WL 12866453, at *6 n.2 (N.D. Ga. May 18, 2015); see also
Morrison v. Parker, 90 F. Supp. 2d 876, 878 (W.D. Mich. 2000) ("Plaintiffs'
general, nonspecific objections, purporting to incorporate by reference their earlier
brief, are tantamount to no objection at all and do not warrant further review.")
(citations omitted).
Absent objection, the district court judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,"
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), and may accept the recommendation if it is not clearly
erroneous or contrary to the law. FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(a). In accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(l) and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules ofCrimmal Procedure, the
Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which
Pierre objects and has reviewed the remainder of the R&R for plain error. See
United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
Case 1:24-cr-00071-MHC-RDC     Document 276     Filed 04/13/26     Page 3 of 9
II. DISCUSSION
A. Pierre's Motions to Suppress Evidence
1. Factual Summary
On August 28. 2022, a carjacking occurred in which the victim, the owner of
a 2019 silver Nissan, was approached by masked assailants who had been driving a
black Infiniti. Search Warrant Applic. [Doc. 166-1] at 2. The assailants pistol-
whipped the Nissan owner, fired shots at the owner (three of which struck the
owner), and took the Nissan which followed the black Infiniti out of the area. Id.
After receiving information about the location of the carjacked vehicle,
Atlanta Police Department officers Trent Denninger and James Douglas located
the victim's Nissan in a parking lot. Id at 3; Tr. of Evidentiary Hr'g (Sept. 2,
2025) ("Tr.") poc. 210] at 7-8, 16.2 The officers observed 3-4 individuals
standing near the Nissan. Tr. at 11, 21-22, 27-28. The suspects then entered the
black Infiniti and drove away and, after the vehicle was observed runnmg a red
light, the officers turned on their blue lights and pursued the vehicle. Id. at 17, 23.
The officers then observed a gun being thrown out of the passenger's window of
the black Infmiti. Id at 17, 23. The officers later found the black Infiniti pulled
Transcript page references are to the Docket Page Numbers.
Case 1:24-cr-00071-MHC-RDC     Document 276     Filed 04/13/26     Page 4 of 9
into an apartment complex and saw several individuals fleeing and getting over a
fence, with the rear door of the vehicle left open. Id at 17-19, 23. Defendants
were eventually arrested. Id. at 24. Search warrants were later issued grantmg
permission to search the black Infiniti and the cell phones found inside the vehicle,
including a blue Apple iPhone. Id. at 34-41; Search Warrant for Black 2010
Infiniti G37 [Doc. 168-1]; Search Warrant for blue Apple iPhone [Doc. 167-1].
2. Discussion
In his motions to suppress, Pierre argued that (1) the search warrant did not
explain why the contents of the black Infiniti would have potential evidence (even
though it alleges that the vehicle was used in the carjacking), and (2) there was no
probable cause to link Pierre's blue Apple iPhone or any data contained therein
with any crime. [Docs. 165 at 2-3; 166 at 1-2; 167 at 1-2; 168 at 2]. Pierre also
argued that he has standing to challenge the search and seizure of property left in
the black Infmiti because it was his sister's car, he was given permission to use it,
and did not abandon his expectation of privacy despite fleeing from the scene.
Def.'s Resp. to Gov't's Br. in Opp'n to Mots. to Suppress Search & Seizure of the
Black Infmiti and the Blue iPhone ("Def.'s Resp.") [Doc. 228] at 3-4.
In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge assumes without deciding that Pierre has
standing to raise his constitutional challenges but recommends denial of the
Case 1:24-cr-00071-MHC-RDC     Document 276     Filed 04/13/26     Page 5 of 9
motions to suppress because he abandoned any privacy interests he may have had
in the vehicle and cell phone by voluntarily leaving it behind when he fled to avoid
arrest. R&R at 12-13. "The Defendants do not refute that they were being chased
by the officers, nor that their property was left unsecured in the parking lot of an
apartment complex; residential housing neither Defendant claims as his home." Id.
at 13.
The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he right of people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. CONST. amend. TV. The
Fourth Amendment protects citizens from random government intmsion on their
privacy. It is the defendant's burden to show a legitimate expectation of privacy in
the area searched. United States v. Sneed, 732 F.2d 886, 888 (llth Cir. 1984).
However, "an individual who abandons or denies ownership of personal property
may not contest the constitutionality of its subsequent acquisition by the police."
United States v. Cofield, 272 F.3d 1303, 1306 (11th Cir. 2001). Whether
abandonment has occurred is a question of intent that may be inferred from acts,
words and "other objective facts." United States v. Pirolli, 673 F.2d 1200, 1204
Case 1:24-cr-00071-MHC-RDC     Document 276     Filed 04/13/26     Page 6 of 9
(11th Cir. 1982). "Courts repeatedly have held that when an mdividual flees from
the police and in the process leaves behind an item inside a vehicle, he has
abandoned any interest in that item for Fourth Amendment purposes." United
States v. Harvey, No. 3:21-CR-00019-TCB-RGV, 2022 WL 16579328,at *5 (N.D.
Ga. Oct. 7, 2022) (collecting cases), R&R adopted. No. 3:21-CR-00019-TCB-
RGV, 2022 WL 16574806 C^.D. Ga. Nov. 1, 2022); see also United States v.
Edwards, 441 F.2d 749, 751-53 (5th Cir. 1971)3 (finding the defendant had no
expectation of privacy in car he abandoned by fleeing from police on foot).
Rather than make specific objections to the R&R, Pierre copied verbatim the
arguments he made to the Magistrate Judge following the evidentiary hearing.
Compare Def.'s Resp. at 2-4 with Def.'s Objs. at 3-5. "[A] party does not state a
valid objection to an R&R by merely incorporating by reference previous filings."
Hammonds, 2015 WL 12866453, at * 6 n.2. Because Pierre makes no specific
objections to the R&R, this Court reviews the same for clear error. FED. R. CRIM.
P. 59(a).
3 In Banner v. City ofPrichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions handed down by
the former Fifth Circuit prior to October 1, 1981.
7
Case 1:24-cr-00071-MHC-RDC     Document 276     Filed 04/13/26     Page 7 of 9
This Court fmds that the Magistrate Judge did not commit clear error in
finding that Pierre abandoned any interest in the black Infmiti or the blue iPhone
found inside when the car was driven and parked by another occupant of the
vehicle, Pierre did not live in the apartment complex where the vehicle was left,
and Pierre abandoned both the vehicle and property left therein when fleeing police
officers. R&R at 7-13 Accordingly, Pierre's Objections to the R&R are
OVERRULED.
B. Harris's Motions to Suppress Evidence
The Magistrate Judge also recommends that Harris's Motion to Suppress
Evidence be denied because he also abandoned any interest in the property when
fleeing law enforcement officers. R&R at 7-13. Harris did not file any objections
to the R&R. Based upon the absence of objections by Harris to the R&R, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l), the Court has reviewed the R&R for plain
error. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983). The Court
finds no plain error and that the R&R is supported by law.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Pierre's general objections to the
R&R [Doc. 257]. Finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the Non-Final R&R
[Doc. 244] as the Opinion and Order of the Court.
8
Case 1:24-cr-00071-MHC-RDC     Document 276     Filed 04/13/26     Page 8 of 9
It is hereby ORDERED that (1) Pierre's Motions to Suppress Search and
Seizure of Apple ID Data [Docs. 165, 166], Pierre's Blue iPhone [Docs. 167, 190],
and the Black 2010 Infmiti G27 [Doc. 168], and (2) Harris's Motion to Suppress
and Exclude Use of Data and Information from Defendant's Cell Phone [Doc.
175], Supplemental Motion Requesting a Franks Hearing to Motion to Suppress
and Exclude Use of Data and Information from Defendant's Cell Phone [Doc 176],
and Unopposed Motion to Amend Motion to Suppress and Exclude Use of Data
and Information from Defendant's Cell Phone [Doc. 182] are DEMED.
MIT IS SO ORDERED this J^—day of April, 2026.
MARKH.COHEN
United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cr-00071-MHC-RDC     Document 276     Filed 04/13/26     Page 9 of 9

Passage view · GavelSight