Opinion
Case No. 2:03CR0315 DS.
June 10, 2004
OPINION AND ORDER ADDRESSING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
I. INTRODUCTION
On June 10, 2004, Officer Stacy Richan of the St. George, Utah Police Department, working as part of a Washington County Task Force, was conducting surveillance on defendant's residence in anticipation of the execution of a search warrant. Richan, who knew that Defendant did not have a valid driver's license, stopped defendant's vehicle as he drove by and arrested him for driving on a suspended license. Defendant's vehicle was impounded. A police narcotics dog alerted to the vehicle and a search found methamphetamine.
After his arrest, Defendant was taken to the St. George Police Station, where he remained until the following morning at which time Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Brad Cox interviewed him. Prior to interrogation, Agent Cox advised Defendant of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona. Defendant said he understood his rights and agreed to speak with Agent Cox and other officers.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant first complains that statements he made at the police station should be suppressed because they were involuntary under the totality of the circumstances and because the Government cannot prove that he knowing and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Case authority instructs as follows:
In determining whether a particular confession is coerced, we consider the following factors: (1) the age, intelligence, and education of the defendant; (2) the length of the detention; (3) the length and nature of the questioning; (4) whether the defendant was advised of her constitutional rights; and (5) whether the defendant was subjected to physical punishment. . . . The determination of voluntariness is based on the totality-of-the-circumstances; none of the single factors listed above is determinative. Accordingly, this court must be mindful of all the circumstances surrounding a defendant's interrogation, including the particular defendant's characteristics.United States v. Glover, 104 F.3d 1570, 1579 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). "A defendant's confession is involuntary if the government's conduct causes the defendant's will to be overborne and `his capacity for self-determination critically impaired'". United States v. McCullah, 76 F.3d 1087, 1101 (10 Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). The government bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a statement was voluntary. Id. at 1100.
The only evidence of record bearing on any of the foregoing considerations is that Defendant was kept all night at the St. George Police Station in a small office type room with a desk and some chairs. Agent Cox met with Defendant at approximately 9:30 a.m. Agent Cox testified that Defendant "may have been" in handcuffs. Before advising Defendant of his Miranda rights and before interrogation, Agent Cox told Defendant that he had been arrested for possession of one ounce of methamphetamine and that he could face five years in federal prison. Defendant was told he would be given an opportunity to cooperate with police. Defendant was then left alone to contemplate his situation for five to ten minutes. When officers returned, Agent Cox advised Defendant of his Miranda rights and Defendant said he understood his rights and agreed to speak with police.
The evidence reflects that Defendant was kept overnight, for a period of time in excess of 9½ hours, in a room without sleeping accommodations, and that Defendant may have been in handcuffs. These circumstances at least suggest that Defendant's physical and emotional health may have been compromised. Under the totality of circumstances presented in the limited record, the court concludes that the Government has failed in its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that statements made by Defendant to police officials were voluntary and without coercion.
Defendant next urges that evidence seized from his vehicle should be suppressed because the warrant and its supporting affidavit were defective, and even if valid, no probable cause existed to search Defendant's vehicle. The court agrees with the Government that Defendant's challenge of the search warrant and affidavit is misplaced. As outlined by the Government, Defendant was arrested pursuant to a valid traffic stop. Probable cause for the subsequent search of the vehicle was validly based on the police narcotics dog's alert for the presence of narcotics. In any event, the evidence inevitably would have been discovered as part of a routine search incident to impoundment of the vehicle.United States v. Haro-Salredo, 107 F.3d 769, 772 (10th Cir. 1997).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons Defendant's Motion to Suppress is GRANTED as to statements he made during custodial interrogation; the Motion is DENIED as to evidence seized from Defendant's vehicle.