United States v. Joel Blanford

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-Appellant United States of America appeals the district court’s grant of Defendant-Appellee Joel Blanford’s motion to suppress statements he made during an in-home interview with federal agents. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we repeat only those facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 . Reviewing de novo the district court’s decision to suppress statements under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and reviewing for clear error the district court’s underlying factual findings, we affirm. See United States v. Brobst, 558 F.3d 982, 995 (9th Cir.2009).

Blanford was in custody for Miranda purposes during his in-home interview because a reasonable person “would ‘have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.’ ” United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995)). Although Blanford invited the agents into his home, we hold that, in light of the totality of the…

dissenting:

The question of whether a reasonable person would have felt that he was not at liberty to terminate an interrogation and leave is aimed at resolving “the ultimate inquiry”: “was there a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 , 116 S.Ct. 457 , 133 L.Ed.2d 383 (1995) (internal punctuation omitted) (quoting California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 , 103 S.Ct. 3517 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (per curiam)). Blanford’s freedom was never restrained to such a degree. While the majority lists a version of the facts corresponding to the factors examined in United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2008), its conclusion abandons Craig-head’s reasons for considering those factors. Therefore, I dissent.

The majority apparently considers the fact that there were two plainclothes agents with concealed weapons as supporting its finding of custody. I disagree. In Craighead , the court was concerned that a “large number” of law enforcement agents might fill the home so there would be nowhere to retreat, might suggest that an agent would stop the suspect on his way out, or might…

facts necessary to resolve the issues raised on appeal. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. y 3731. Reviewing de novo the district court's decision to

suppress statements under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and

reviewing for clear error the district court's underlying factual findings, we affirm.

See United States v. Brobst, 558 F.3d 982, 995 (9th Cir. 2009).

Blanford was in custody for Miranda purposes during his in-home interview

because a reasonable person 'would 'have felt he or she was not at liberty to

terminate the interrogation and leave.'' United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d

1073, 1082 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112

(1995)). Although Blanford invited the agents into his home, we hold that, in light

of the totality of the circumstances, the interview was custodial. Blanford was

isolated during the interview, which lasted forty-five minutes. The agents were

armed with guns, advised him not to have a lawyer present, and confronted him

with substantial evidence of his guilt for fraud and not telling the truth, to stop him

from terminating the interview or leaving. Moreover, the…