Unwarned statements were suppressed, but search based on them in part was not

Defendants were in custody when questioned in their house, separated and in a state of undress. United States v. Daubmann, 474 F. Supp. 2d 228 (D. Mass. 2007):

In this case, the circumstances rightly persuaded Defendants, and would have persuaded any reasonable person, that they were essentially in custody. They were kept physically separated from one another and their freedom of movement was blocked. They were under the constant guard of agents who, as in the case of Donna Daubmann, insisted on maintaining their watch in even the most intimate moments. Adding to the coercive atmosphere was the shocking fact that all three Daubmanns were questioned while in a humiliating state of undress and were not permitted to change into more appropriate attire until the agents concluded their questioning.

Under the circumstances, no reasonable person in the Daubmanns’ situation would believe that he or she was truly free to leave or had any choice but to cooperate with the agents and respond to questions. Therefore, Miranda warnings should have been given prior to any interrogation; because they were not, the Daubmanns’ statements must be suppressed.

The fact that the unwarned statements were used to expand the search with a later search warrant did not require suppression:

In this case, unlike in Patane, where the police recovered a gun as a result of unwarned statements, the Daubmanns’ statements were used to obtain an expanded search warrant. Nonetheless, “this difference is immaterial.” United States v. Phillips, 468 F.3d 1264, 1266 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that DNA evidence, obtained pursuant to a search warrant, was admissible despite fact that supporting affidavit relied on a defendant’s statements offered in a custodial environment without a Miranda warning).

Because the Magistrate Judge properly relied on the Daubmanns’ voluntary statements in his determination of probable cause, the supplemental search warrants issued on August 28, 2002 had a lawful basis, and the documents seized pursuant to them will not be suppressed.

“Because the police officers’ searches were conducted under the direction and supervision of Midgette’s probation officer, we conclude that they did not violate North Carolina law.” Therefore, the probationer search was valid. “Because Midgette failed to present his other arguments regarding the constitutionality of the North Carolina probation law and the lack of reasonable suspicion to the district judge as objections to the magistrate judge’s report, we conclude that he waived his right to appeal those issues.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616 (4th Cir. 2007).*