Opinion
20-CR-2124 MV
07-15-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. OLUTAYO OGUNLAJA, ET AL Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MARTHA VÁZQUEZ, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Olutayo Ogunlaja's Motion to Suppress Statements. Doc. 159. The government filed a Response. Doc. 161. Having considered the briefs and relevant law, and being otherwise fully informed, the Court finds that the motion is well-taken and will be granted.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Ogunlaja filed the instant motion asking this Court to suppress all of his statements given during an interview conducted on September 9, 2021 by FBI Special Agent J. Joel vanBrandwijk due to the agent's failure to sufficiently advise Mr. Ogunlaja of his Miranda rights. Doc. 159 at 1. In its Response, the government concedes that the Miranda advisement was inadequate and agrees that the statements must be suppressed. Doc. 161 at 1. However, the government asks the Court to find that Mr. Ogunlaja's statements may still be used for impeachment purposes. Id. Following the government's Response, Mr. Ogunlaja filed a Notice of Completion of Briefing and noted that there was no dispute over the relief requested in his initial motion. Doc. 162.
Since both parties agree that the statements may not be used in the government's case-in-chief, the Court will grant the motion. Pursuant to Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 224 (1971), the statements will still be admissible for impeachment purposes should Mr. Ogunlaja choose to testify. See United States v. Pettigrew, 468 F.3d 626, 635 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he prosecution is still permitted to use statements taken in violation of Miranda for impeachment purposes on crossexamination.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Suppress Statements [Doc. 159] is granted and Mr. Ogunlaja's statements may not be used in the government's case-in-chief.