The fact it took five days to bring the defendant before a USMJ when he was arrested at sea hundreds of miles from the nearest one is not unnecessary delay. Here, the defendant was flown to Tampa. His confession was valid because there was no oppressive questioning in the interim. United States v. Lizarraga-Caceres, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45107 (M.D. Fla. June 8, 2007):<\/p>\n
In determining whether the government violated [F.R. Crim. P.] Rule 5(a), courts look at the reason(s) for the delay. Purvis,<\/em> 768 F.2d at 1239; Rogers,<\/em> 330 F.2d at 538. In Purvis, the court looked at such factors as the distance from the place of arrest to the nearest United States territory, any reasons for delay during the transport, the treatment of the defendant during transport and whether the defendant was improperly interrogated. Purvis,<\/em> at 1239. In considering the “outer limits” of any necessary delay during which an interrogation will be permissible, the court in Rogers considered the availability of a committing magistrate, the length of delay before the prisoner is taken before the magistrate, and the police purpose or justification, if any, for the delay. Rogers,<\/em> at 538. When a judicial officer is available and detention is prolonged for the purpose of eliciting a confession through interrogation, Rule 5(a) is violated. Id.<\/em> (citing Mallory v. United States,<\/em> 354 U.S. 449 (1957)).<\/p>\n
In Purvis<\/em>, the defendants were on a boat 350 miles from Key West when the boat was boarded and drugs were found. Purvis,<\/em> 768 F. at 1239. Five days elapsed from the time the defendants were arrested at sea to the time they were brought before a federal magistrate. Id.<\/em> at 1238-39. In concluding there was no unnecessary delay under Rule 5, the court determined that a large part of the delay was necessitated by the fact that the arrests were made at a significant distance from port and a portion of the delay was necessitated by the brief unavailability of the magistrate. Id. <\/em>Additionally, the court noted that the defendants had not been mistreated during the delay, they were fed regularly, given mattresses to sleep on, and had access to bathrooms. Id.<\/em> Further, there was no evidence of any improper or coercive interrogations; rather, the defendants were read their rights and interrogated by Coast Guard authorities after the arrest. Id.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Traffic offense justified stop, and defendant consented to a patdown. Before the patdown could occur, defendant apparently tossed baggies of crack to the ground, and it was abandoned property. United States v. Tisdale, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44781 (D. Kan. June 19, 2007).*<\/p>\n
The date decal on an out of state license plate was partially blocked by a license plate bracket, and that gave cause for a stop under Kansas law. The officer could see it after the stop, and he told the defendant that he was not getting a ticket, but the officer asked for consent and got it. The consent was valid. United States v. Orduna-Martinez, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45156 (D. Kan. May 2, 2007)*:<\/p>\n
Upon receiving the information from dispatch, Trooper Nicholas approached defendant who was standing at the back of the Explorer, gave him a warning ticket, returned all of defendant’s paperwork, and told him, “Have a safe trip.” Both started walking toward their respective vehicles. Trooper Nicholas then asked, “Hey, can I ask you some questions?” When defendant returned to the back of the Explorer, Trooper Nicholas motioned toward the tires and wheels in the back of the Explorer and asked, “Those fit a Honda? Can I look at them?” The defendant replied, “Yeah,” and opened the back of the Explorer. The trooper then asked, “You don’t have any drugs, guns, money or stuff like that,” and upon receiving a negative response from defendant, asked for and received consent to search.<\/p>\n
During Trooper Nicholas’ examination of the tires, wheels and vehicle, he became convinced that there was a false compartment in the vehicle and called for backup. Back-up officers later arrived and the officers discovered cocaine in the concealed compartment. Defendant and the passenger were then arrested and defendant was given a Miranda card written in Spanish, which he said he understood. Defendant was not asked any questions at that time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading