D.Md.: While def’s statement is suppressed for a Miranda violation, he still consented to a search of his car during the suppressed statement

While defendant’s confession was suppressed for a Miranda violation, his consent to search was still valid because his will was not overborne. United States v. Woodland, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 319 (D. Md. Jan. 2, 2018):

An interrogation of an individual suspected of serious criminal activity will often consist of something other than a polite exchange of questions and answers. Law enforcement is also not obligated to identify and use the location that would be most appealing to the subject of the interrogation or to provide the subject with every accommodation that the subject might desire. But when the environment in which the interrogation is conducted becomes one in which a reasonable person would not believe that he could terminate the interrogation and leave, the subject must be advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Here, law enforcement interrogated the Defendant for over two hours, in an area of the Westlake Post Office they controlled, confronted him with evidence of his guilt, interrupted him frequently using an increasingly hostile tone when he denied the allegations, repeatedly threatened him with a lengthy prison sentence, and accompanied and continued recording him during his “break.” Although the Court finds that the consent that Defendant gave to search his phone was voluntary, because the Court finds that the Defendant was in custody for purposes of Miranda and he was not advised of his Miranda rights, the statements made by the Defendant during the interrogation will be suppressed.

This entry was posted in Consent. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.