United States v. Kristi Little Wolf

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Kristi Mae Little Wolf appeals the denial of her motion to suppress statements made to police during an in-home interview about her participation in a scheme to distribute methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Little Wolf argues that because the investigating officers did not inform her of her right against self-incrimination, “the prosecution may not use statements ... stemming from” that questioning because she was in custody at the time. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Little Wolf was “in custody” when interviewed in her home if, based on “the totality of the circumstances ... a reasonable person in [her] position ... would not have felt free to terminate the interrogation” and leave. United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073, 1082-83 (9th Cir.2008). In evaluating such claims, courts examine:

Id. at 1084 .

None of these factors weigh in favor of the conclusion that Little Wolf was in custody when questioned by the investigating officers. As the district court found after conducting a hearing, three law enforcement officers entered Little Wolfs home dressed in…