United States v. Beard case brief summary
119 Fed.Appx. 462 (2005)
CASE FACTS
The police went to defendant's home to investigate a domestic disturbance complaint. They were told that defendant had threatened his sister with a gun; they discovered the shotgun in a van parked outside. The officers informed defendant of his "rights" and then questioned him about the gun. He confessed that the gun was his and that he was a convicted felon. Defendant moved to suppress his confession. The distinct court found that defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes and that the United States had not proved that proper Miranda warnings were given.
HOLDING
The court held that the district court had applied the wrong legal test when making its custody finding; it should have examined whether defendant felt that his freedom was substantially curtained and whether, based upon a totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that he was in custody.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the district court's suppression order and remanded the case back for further proceedings.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
119 Fed.Appx. 462 (2005)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The police arrested defendant after he
admitted owning an illegal, sawed-off shotgun. Defendant moved to
suppress his confession on the ground that he had not received proper
Miranda warnings. The United States filed an interlocutory appeal
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.S. § 3731 after the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond,
granted defendant's motion and ordered the confession to be
suppressed.CASE FACTS
The police went to defendant's home to investigate a domestic disturbance complaint. They were told that defendant had threatened his sister with a gun; they discovered the shotgun in a van parked outside. The officers informed defendant of his "rights" and then questioned him about the gun. He confessed that the gun was his and that he was a convicted felon. Defendant moved to suppress his confession. The distinct court found that defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes and that the United States had not proved that proper Miranda warnings were given.
HOLDING
The court held that the district court had applied the wrong legal test when making its custody finding; it should have examined whether defendant felt that his freedom was substantially curtained and whether, based upon a totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that he was in custody.
DISCUSSION
- No Miranda violation occurred because defendant was not in custody when he was questioned; he was questioned in his own home, he was not handcuffed or restrained, and the officers did not threaten or intimidate him in any way.
- The fact that some warnings were given did not per se render the questioning custodial.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the district court's suppression order and remanded the case back for further proceedings.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment