United States v. Carlos Martinez

MEMORANDUM **

The United States appeals the district court’s order granting Carlos Martinez’s motion to suppress statements he made during a police interrogation. The district court ruled there was “no constitutional justification for the conduct of the officers” throughout the interrogation. The Government timely appealed. It argues that because Martinez was not in custody during the initial one minute and forty-six seconds of the interrogation, that portion of the interview should not have been suppressed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We''agree with the Government and reverse the district court’s order.

The Government argues for the first time on appeal that the district court should have introduced the first one minute and forty-six seconds of the interview. Limiting the inquiry to Martinez’s initial statements alters our analysis considerably. We requested supplemental briefing addressing whether the Government waived the argument that Martinez’s initial statements are admissible. In response, Martinez took the position that the Government did not waive this argument. Therefore, pursuant to this court’s waiver of waiver doctrine, we reach the merits of the…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. Under the totality of the circumstances, even reducing the analysis to the newly considered one minute and forty-six second time period, I conclude that from the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave the interrogation from its outset. No one factor is controlling, but the overriding police presence inside and outside of the police van used for interrogation and parked at the house weighs heavily in evaluating the totality of the circumstances in this case.

In United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir.2008), this Court considered, among other things, four factors in determining that law enforcement dominated the scene at defendant’s house to the extent that the defendant was in custody and that his statements should be suppressed: “(1) the number of law enforcement personnel and whether they were armed; (2) whether the suspect was at any point' restrained, either by physical force or by threats; (3) whether the suspect was isolated from others; and (4) whether the *661 suspect was informed that he was free to leave or terminate the interview and the context in which…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 23 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10390

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cr-00803-CRB-

v.

MEMORANDUM*

CARLOS MARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles R. Breyer, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2014 San Francisco, California

Before: N.R. SMITH and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and PIERSOL, Senior District Judge.**

The United States appeals the district court’s order granting Carlos

Martinez’s motion to suppress statements he made during a police interrogation.

The district court ruled there was “no constitutional justification for the conduct of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation. the officers” throughout the…