United States v. Kody Houk

MEMORANDUM

Defendant Kody Garrett Houk appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the incriminating state ments that he made during an interrogation. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879, 883 (9th Cir.2009), we hold that Defendant was not in custody during his interrogation and, thus, we affirm.

We look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a suspect is “in custody” for purposes of Miranda. United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir.2008). Here, four of the five factors that United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2002), identified as relevant to an “in-custody” determination weigh against the conclusion that Defendant was in custody.

First, an agent asked Defendant if he would speak with her; her language was not coercive. Second, the agents interrogated Defendant in an ordinary meeting room located in the post office building where he began and ended his workdays. The location was neither intimidating nor wholly unfamiliar. Third, agents questioned Defendant for only about an hour; the entire investigation lasted for about an hour-and-a-half. Fourth, agents did not touch or handcuff…