United States v. Jody Myesha Orso

Opinion by Judge O’SCANNLAIN; Concurrence by Judge PAEZ

We must decide whether a Mirandized confession by a suspect in custody must be suppressed because it immediately followed her arguably incriminating un-Mir-andized statements.

I

While delivering mail, Vicki Orr, a postal letter carrier, was approached by Jody Myesha Orso. Orso demanded that Orr produce her arrow keys, used to open United States Postal Service (“USPS”) collection boxes and group mailboxes at apartment buildings. Orr surrendered the keys to Orso, who fled on foot.

The USPS began an investigation. After USPS Inspectors Anthony Galetti and Shawn Tiller obtained information that made Orso a suspect, they left their cards at her residence, requesting that she call them. Orso responded to the request and spoke with Inspector Tiller by telephone.

Shortly thereafter, a federal arrest warrant was issued for Orso for robbery of a postal letter carrier. More than two months later, Orso was arrested by Redon-do Beach police officers on unrelated charges and taken to the Redondo Beach Police Department. The arresting officers, upon learning of the federal warrant, notified Inspector Galetti that they were holding…

with whom Chief Judge SCHROEDER and Circuit Judges HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and RAWLINSON join, concurring:

I concur in the determination that the district court must suppress the incriminating statements Orso made after two U.S. Postal Inspectors arrested and took her into custody and then drove her in their government vehicle from the Redondo Beach Police Department to the Postal Inspection Service Office. The Postal Inspectors interrogated Orso without first informing her of her Constitutional rights, and these “unwarned” statements must therefore be suppressed. Miranda v. Ari zona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

With some reluctance, I also concur in the conclusion that, under Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), the district court need not suppress the confession Orso made after she was read, and then waived, her Miranda rights. I write separately for two reasons. First, the court’s opinion does not accord due weight to the Inspectors’ admission that they deliberately failed to advise Orso of her Constitutional rights because they believed that, unwarned, she would unwittingly incriminate herself. Second, the court…

266 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JODY MYESHA ORSO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. No. 99-50328 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Argued and Submitted June 21, 2001 Filed September 17, 2001 Elizabeth A. Newman (argued), Emily S. Uhrig, and Maria E. Stratton, Federal Public Defender, Los Angeles, California, for the defendant-appellant. Ronald L. Cheng (argued), Wendy O. Clendening, and Alejandro Mayorkas, United States Attorney, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Lourdes G. Baird, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-98-00024-LGB-01 Before: Mary M. Schroeder, Chief Judge, and Procter Hug, Jr., Alex Kozinski, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Michael Daly Hawkins, M. Margaret McKeown, Ronald M. Gould, Richard A. Paez, Richard C. Tallman, and Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge O'Scannlain; Concurrence by Judge PaezO'scannlain, Circuit Judge. 1 We must decide whether a Mirandized confession by a suspect in custody must be suppressed because it immediately followed her arguably incriminating…