Hurtado

United States v. Hurtado

Good Law
21 F. Supp. 3d 1036·2014 WL 880985·2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27701
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 3, 2014Case No. 13-cr-00121-JST-3California2,375 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tigar, J.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Re: ECF No. 65,

I. INTRODUCTION

Criminal defendant Fidel Hurtado moves to suppress a statement given to an officer. Motions and Notice of Motion (“Motion”) 11:10-17:7. The matter came for hearing on February 12, 2014.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Defendant Hurtado was arrested in Napa and taken to a police station for questioning in a room with two officers. One officer and Defendant engaged in an interaction in Spanish, translated and transcribed as follows:

Hurtado’s response can clearly be heard to consist of two separate syllables, in which the pitch of the second syllable rises.

Immediately after Hurtado’s response, the officer began asking him questions, which Hurtado answered.

B. Legal Standard

The government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a criminal defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 608, n. 1 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 , 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004). The Court must assess the voluntariness of an admission under the “ ‘totality of all the circumstances — both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.