dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this matter.

After conviction by trial, the defendant appeals the order of the district court that denied his motion to suppress statements made to federal officers obtained in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 . The facts as found and relied upon by the district court are as follows.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant Pedro Alvarez-Sanchez was arrested by Los Angeles Sheriffs Deputies on narcotics charges on August 5, 1988, during the execution of a search warrant on defendant’s residence. It is not clear whether the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department was told that the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office would decline prosecution (Declaration of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Deputy Abraham Hernandez), or if the case was never presented to the District Attorney for a prosecutorial decision (Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Detective John McCann). However, because counterfeit money totaling $2,260.00 was recovered from defendant’s residence, the Secret Service was notified on Monday, August 8, 1988.

At about 11:30 a.m. on August 8, 1988, defendant, while still in state police custody, was interviewed by United States Secret Service Special Agents Lipscomb and Bozzuto, and Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Deputy Abraham Hernandez, the latter being fluent in Spanish. Defendant was advised of, and agreed to waive, his Miranda rights, and confessed to knowingly possessing counterfeit money. Defen *1407 dant was taken into custody by the special agents in the afternoon of August 8, 1988.

After returning to the United States Courthouse in Los Angeles, California, the arresting officers proceeded to put the defendant through the necessary booking procedures. By the time they had completed these procedures, they were told that the magistrate’s calendar was filled, and that the defendant could not be brought before a magistrate on August 8, 1988. Defendant was brought before the magistrate on the morning of August 9, 1988. An indictment was subsequently returned against the defendant charging him with possession of counterfeit money with the intent to defraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472 . He was convicted.

We are mandated to review the claimed violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 de novo. United States v. Wilson, 838 F.2d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir.1988).

DISCUSSION

At the time this case arose, Title 18 of the United States Code § 3501 read as follows:

18 U.S.C. § 3501 (emphasis added). 1

This section was passed to ameliorate the effect of Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 , 77 S.Ct. 1356 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1479 (1957). The legislative history reveals the congressional view of the effect that Mallory was having on criminal prosecutions:

S.Rpt. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1968 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2112, 2124.

In United States v. Halbert, 436 F.2d 1226 (9th Cir.1970), this court held that a voluntary confession given more than six hours after the defendant was taken into custody by state officer was admissible.

The pertinent facts were as follows:

1. Defendant Halbert was arrested by state officers in the afternoon of November 11, 1969. He was booked in the Bowie, Arizona jail.

2. On November 12, between 9 and 10 a.m., state officials notified the FBI of the arrests and possible Dyer Act violation. The FBI received confirmation that the car in which the defendant had' been arrested had been stolen in California.

3. On November 13, 1969, an FBI agent interviewed Halbert and obtained his confession at about 3:26 p.m.

4. The United States Attorney requested the FBI to determine if local authorities *1409 in Los Angeles would prosecute the defendant. They declined and so notified the Arizona FBI agents on November 13, 1969.

5. On Friday, November 14, 1969, FBI agent Bogley was assigned other routine duties and did not present the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona until Monday, November 17, 1969. A complaint was filed, and a warrant was issued. Hal-bert first appeared before the U.S. Magistrate on November 17, 1969.

The appellate panel’s summary continued:

Id. at 1226 .

The Halbert panel held that 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (c) does not automatically render all confessions made after 6 hours of detention inadmissible:

Id. at 1234.

The Halbert panel then discussed the legislative history and concluded that it *1410 supported their interpretation. The Hal-bert panel concluded:

Id. at 1237.

An examination of the cases which have involved an application of ' 18 U.S.C. § 3501 since Halbert is equally instructive.

In United States v. Stage, 464 F.2d 1057 (9th Cir.1972), the defendant was arrested on August 20, 1970. Federal agents began questioning him soon after his arrest and gave Stage his Miranda warning on August 20, 1970. Stage indicated that he did not want to make any statements until he talked to an attorney. No attorney was' ever furnished. On August 25, 1970, after a continued interrogation by state and federal officers, Stage filed a “waiver of rights” and confessed to a Dyer Act violation. His conviction was reversed and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment. 2

In United States v. Mandley, 502 F.2d 1103 (9th Cir.1974), the defendant was arrested by state officers on December 26, 1973 for a parole violation. Wanted by the FBI, a federal hold was placed upon him. When his parole hearing occurred on January 7, 1974, the disposition of the state parole charge was postponed until disposition of the federal charges. On January 19, 1974, federal agents interviewed Mand-ley. He signed a waiver of his Miranda rights and confessed, following a two hour interview. Mandley was taken before a magistrate on January 14, 1974, nineteen days after his initial arrest, and seven days after the state hearing was suspended. The Ninth Circuit panel held that the confession was admissible, stating:

United States v. Mandley, 502 F.2d at 1105 .

In United States v. Edwards, 539 F.2d 689 (9th Cir.1976), a rape occurred on an Indian reservation in Arizona on November 1, 1975. After a preliminary investigation, the United States Attorney authorized prosecution of the defendant. The FBI notified the Bureau of Indian Affairs that it could make the arrest. After his arrest on November 4, 1975, the defendant signed a waiver of his rights and an admission was obtained approximately 7 hours after being taken into custody and before being taken before a magistrate. The panel affirmed the trial court’s finding that the confession was voluntary.

In United States v. Manuel, 706 F.2d 908 (9th Cir.1983), the following events occurred. On August 3, 1981, the body of one Howard was found on an Arizona road. On August 4, 1981, Manuel and two other suspects were arrested. All three were *1411 heavily intoxicated, and a decision was made to allow the defendants to sleep off the effects of the alcohol. On August 5, 1981, Manuel was questioned by FBI Agent Fish, starting shortly after 8:00 a.m. After being instructed as to his Miranda rights, Manuel confessed his role in the killing of Howard. Following this interview, the United States Attorney authorized prosecution of Manuel, but did not authorize arrest. The Indian tribe declined to prosecute, and on November 21, 1981, Manuel was indicted. The appellate panel affirmed the trial court’s determination that the confession was admissible at trial, stating:

In United States v. Wilson, 838 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir.1988), the Navajo Tribal Police Department received a call on May 3, 1985 regarding an unconscious child at the Public Health Service Hospital. The child’s mother told the Tribal Police her common law husband had spanked the child with a shoe. The FBI in Gallup, New Mexico was notified. The FBI instructed the Navajo police to get a written statement from the mother and to keep the FBI informed. Wilson was arrested by tribal officers later the same day. He was placed in solitary confinement and special security precautions were taken to monitor him frequently during his custody upon their arrival at the tribal jail.

Sgt. Hawkins told the FBI agents that Wilson was to be arraigned on the tribal charges that day. He further stated that if the court started taking arraignments during their interview, he would make arrangements to take Wilson before the judge himself after the agents had finished the interview.

FBI Agents Babcock and Coffman started their interview sometime between 1:00 and 1:30 p.m. on May 10, 1985. The court’s summary of this interview is as follows:

United States v. Wilson, 838 F.2d at 1083 .

The Wilson panel reversed the trial court’s determination that Wilson’s confession was voluntary stating:

Id. at 1087.

The Halbert analysis, and the cases that have followed make it clear that 18 U.S.C. § 3501 (a), (b), and (c) should be construed together. The failure to bring a defendant before a magistrate within six hours of his or her arrest does not, in and of itself, render a confession given in the interim inadmissible. The Court’s inquiry should center on all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the confession to determine if it was voluntarily given.

In the case before the Court, there is no evidence that any delay in bringing Alvarez before the magistrate was used to lengthen the interrogation of this defendant. Further, the defendant knew the nature of the charges pending against him.

As the defendant was being booked, and not in response to any specified question, he asked, "is this about the counterfeit money?” The defendant admitted possession of the counterfeit money shortly after the beginning of the interrogation by Special Agents Lipscomb and Bozzuto of the Secret Service.

I would affirm the ruling of the trial court denying defendant’s motion to suppress, and would affirm defendant’s conviction.

. The bill as originally passed, referred to "commissioners." The word "magistrate” was inserted wherever the word "commissioner” originally appeared.

. One member of the panel dissented, but agreed that the confession of Stage was not admissible.