Defendant was detained at the border and inside a building, but he wasn’t “in custody” for Miranda purposes. “Bustillos-Ramirez’s time seated at the table presents a situation similar to those cited in which the courts found that the defendant was not in custody. Although Bustillos-Ramirez was not free to leave, the circumstances of the detention would lead a reasonable innocent person to believe that he would be free to go once the search was over and he answered any questions. Defendant remained in a public place, the officers acted in a non-threatening manner and asked about the vehicle and his travel plans, he was only detained at the table while the officers searched the vehicle, and he was not restrained or locked up in any manner. Therefore, Defendant was detained while seated at the table, but he was not yet in custody for purposes of Miranda.” United States v. Bustillos-Ramirez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191803 (D. N.M. March 28, 2016).
“The search was pursuant to a federal search warrant and Defendant has failed to show how the warrant was not supported by probable cause or otherwise defective. … Defendant cannot and has not shown that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel’s deficiencies prejudiced his defense.” United States v. Whaley, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186838 (D. S.D. Nov. 13, 2017).*