United States v. David Marshall Olof

We reversed appellant’s conviction on the ground that evidence admitted at his trial was obtained in a search in violation of the rule of Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 , 93 S.Ct. 2535 , 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973). The Supreme Court later held the rule of Almeida-Sanchez was to be applied prospectively only. United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531 , 95 S.Ct. 2313 , 45 L.Ed.2d 374 (1975). The search of appellant’s van antedated Almeida-Sanchez . We therefore granted the government’s petition for rehearing.

Appellant also argued that reversal was required because of the admission of a statement taken from appellant in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We agree.

Appellant was arrested and advised of his rights under Miranda . He refused to make a statement. Three hours later he was again interviewed, while still in custody and handcuffed. One of the two agents present knew of appellant’s prior refusals to give a statement. He was again advised of his Miranda rights. The interviewing agent urged appellant to cooperate and told him his cooperation would be called to the attention of the United States Attorney. (A…