D.Utah: Defendant was clearly “seized” at the police station; couldn’t even go to bathroom without escort

Defendant was transported to the police station in the caged back of a patrol car and the police had his ID. He was kept incommunicado, denied food and water, and escorted to the bathroom. He was seized, and it was without probable cause. United States v. Mendoza-Trujillo, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124302 (D. Utah September 2, 2014):

As the Supreme Court noted in Kaupp, “[i]t cannot seriously be suggested that when the detectives began to question Kaupp, a reasonable person in his situation would have thought he was sitting in an interview room as a matter of choice, free to change his mind and go home to bed.” A reasonable person in Javier’s situation—prohibited from getting his own ID from his own house (which was then kept in the possession of police); prohibited from going to the police station in his own vehicle; kept in a small, windowless interview room for several hours without food or water; and escorted to and from the restroom — would not have thought it was all a matter of choice, and that he could change his mind at any time and go home. Detective Pittman never advised Javier that he could refuse to answer questions. Detective Pittman never told Javier that he could terminate the interview. Detective Pittman never told Javier that he was free to leave. In fact, when Javier specifically asked if he was being detained, Detective Pittman actually confirmed that understanding, telling him “[o]nce we [are] finished talking, you can go back to your house.” Javier could have no other reasonable understanding than that he was being detained in police custody until he satisfactorily answered Detective Pittman’s questions.