Case 4:16-cr-40070-KES Document 262 Filed 02/17/17 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 894 LEGAL STANDARD This court’s review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court reviews de novo any objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations with respect to dispositive matters that are timely made and specific. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Because motions to suppress evidence are considered dispositive matters, a magistrate judge’s recommendation regarding such a motion is subject to de novo review. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980). In conducting de novo review, this court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Craft, 30 F.3d 1044, 1045 (8th Cir. 1994). FACTS Hulscher’s motion to suppress revolves around the review of his cell phone data by two law enforcement agencies: (1) the Huron Police Department and (2) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). Both agencies investigated Hulscher on unrelated charges. The Huron Police Department investigated Hulscher on forgery, counterfeiting, and identity theft charges. ATF investigated Hulscher for various firearm offenses. During the investigation by the Huron Police Department, Sergeant Mark Johnson applied for a warrant to search Hulscher’s Apple iPhone. The Third Judicial Circuit of South Dakota issued a search warrant allowing any law enforcement officer in 2